NO. 07-07 -015 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B APR IL 29 , 200 9

_________

_________

_________

___ VIRGL E W AT T ERSON, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 413067; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Vi rg le W atterson appeals from hi s j ur y co nv icti on of ag g ra v ated sex ual assau lt of

a child and the resu lting senten ce of lif e imp risonm ent . Th rough four issues, a p p e lla n t a rgu e s t h e tri a l co u rterr e d by a d m it ti n g evid e n ce of extr a n e o u s o f

fe n se s, w ro n gs or bad act s, and by

deny ing a mi str ial and that the e v ide nce present ed attr ial i s i nsuffici ent to s ust ain hi s c onv icti on. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 22.021 (V er n o n 2007)
. An offense under se cti on 1 22. 021 is a fir s td e gr e e felon y pun ishab le by imp risonm entfor life or any term not m ore than 99 y ears o r les s t han 5 y ears a nd a fine of not more than $10,000
. Tex . Penal Cod e Ann. § 12. 32 ( Ver non 200 3)
. The ni ck name s ometi mes i s s pel led “ Papa” i n the record. W e us e th is sp ell ing 2 beca use it ap pea rs in appe llant’s w ritten sta tem entadm itted at trial. The boy ’s st epfathe r te st ified thatw hat t he boy sa id w as “a bsol utel y ” cons is tent 3 w it h w hat h is w ife tol d hi m. 2 Back g ro und By a June 2006 indi ctment , appell ant w as charg ed w it h agg ra v ated sex ual as saul t, 1 sp e ci fical ly

“ int enti onal ly

and know ing ly

ca us[ ing ] t he s ex ual org an of [a chi ld] w ho w as then and t here y oung er than 14 y ears of ag e, and not the spous e of the sai d defendant, to con tact th e mo uth of the said defend ant .” T he victim of

app ellant ’s assault was a five-y ear-old b oy, th e grandson of app ellant ’s w ife. T he b oy called a ppe llant “Paw Paw .” Appe llant an d his w ife l ive d on ly a short 2 dis tanc e from t he boy

and his mother

and ste pfather. Ev ide nce show ed the boymade an ou t c ry statem entto his mo the r af ter he ca me hom e f rom sp end ing the night w ith his g ra ndmother

and appel lan t. H is mother sa id he s eemed ups et, and fina lly t o ld her that Paw Paw w as g oin g to Hel l. Sh e tr ied to dis suade the boy from that ide a, bu t he persi ste d. W hen sh e as ked w hy , t he boy sa id, “ Beca use he l ic ked mypee- pee.” Sh e c all ed her husba nd i nto t he room, and tol d hi m of the boy ’s st atement. He tal ked w it h the boy , and heard the sa me thi ng . They cal led the boy ’s g ra ndmother , app ell ant’ s w ife, t o the ir home. 3 The boy made t he s ame st atement to hi s g ra ndmother
. The boy i ndi cat ed th e ev ents happened in appel lan t’ s p ic kup.W arnings on th e w ritten sta tem ent , initialed bya ppe llant, track tho se set forth in 4 § 2 o f a rt i c l e 3 8
. 2 2 o f t h e C o d e o f C r i mi n a l P ro c e d u re . T e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt
. 38. 22, § 2 (Vernon 200 5). 3 Appel lan t’ s w ife w ent b ack to her home and retur ned w it h appel lan t. In conv ersat ion w it h h i s w i fe a n d t h e b o y ’ s s t e p fa t h e r , a p p e l l a n t d e n i e d t h e a c c u s a t i o n . D u r i ng that conv ersat ion , he made the st atement, “ Fi ne, I di d i t. I did i t j ustl ik e I did i t t o Andrea.” The family ca ll ed aut hor it ies
. A Lubboc k Cou nty sher iff’s d eputy respon ded, took

i nformati on f rom th e bo y ’s moth er and dete rmine d tha t the boy was no t in f urthe r danger. A few days later, a sherif f ’s depa rtme nt investigator accom pan ied th e bo y and his mother to the Chi ldren’ s Adv ocacy C enter for a n i nter

v iew
. He obser

v ed th e i nter

v iew , and testif ied th e bo y ’s statem entto the intervi ewer w as con sistentw ith the boy’s mo the r’s sta tement to t he i nv est ig ator aboutthe offense. W hen t he i nv est ig ator

retur ned to his off ic e, he found thatappel lan t had l eft phone mess ag es to t he effect tha t “ he need ed to tal k t o [t he i nv est ig ator .] H e neede d hel p.” The i nv es ti g at or

ret ur ne d ap pe l l an t’ s ca l l s , an d mad e an a pp oi nt me ntw i th a pp el l an t, w ho c am e to t he s her iff’s o ff ic e tha t day
. He s igned and swore to a ty pew ri tten sta tement the inv est ig ator

prepared dur ing thei r conv ersat ion
. The s tatementco ntai ned t his ac countof 4 the e v ents thatoc cur re d i n appel lan t’ s p ic kup as he drov e the boy to appel lan t’ s h ome to spend the nig ht:

“I put [the boy] on myl ap and w as letti ng hi m ste er the tr uck
. . . . [The boy] s topped ste er ing and g ra bbed h is p e nis . I tol d hi m to q uit [e] g ra bbi ng that thi ng or

Paw Paw w as g oin g to bit e i t off. He g ra bbed i t one more ti me. I t ook [the boy] off myl ap and sethim in the middl e of the bench se at be si de me . I p u lled his shorts do w n. I pu lled his und erw ear do w n w ith his shorts.4

I be nto v er

a nd p utmy

mo ut h on h i s pen i s . The n I th ou g htt o my s el f, ‘ Oh my g od, w hat a m I do ing .’ I ra is ed up and apo log iz ed to [t he boy .] I t old hi m Paw Paw w as sor ry . I t old hi m t hat t his i s w hat b ad peop le do, n ot P aw Paw
. I told h im tha t Paw Paw was going to g o to Hell.” “I w ent ahead and drov e the restof the way home. W e w ere j usta few hu nd red fee t from h om e, s o i t di dn ’ t ta k e l on g . I w ould n ever h ur t my g ra ndson . I l ov e my

g ra ndson v er

y much. It onl y happened for a s econd or so. Butl ong enoug h and itnev er sh oul d hav e happe ned. I nee d hel p. The bour bon I had drank and t he demons I hav e been fig hti ng . All of this i s w hat cause d it to ha ppe n.” Appel lan t t est ified at tr ial
. He there mai ntai ned t he i nci dent w as an ac ci dent dur ing horsepl ay

betw een hi m and t he boy
. He tes ti fied he mov ed th e boy to the mi ddl e of the pickup ’s bench seat ne xt to him and “raised up his shirt” a n d “ we n td o w n to blo w on his bel ly ” but t he boy

“ pushe d aw ay ” from appel lan t, lau g hin g . W hen t hat h appened, appel lan t sai d, hi s c hin m ay

acci dental ly

hav e come into contact w it h the boy ’s penis. He sai d the boy’s shorts and und erw ear ha d “com e do w n” w hen the boy mo v ed a cross the vehicle’s seat
. Appel lan t admi tted he had tol d di ffer ing v ersi ons of the ev ents . H e tes ti fied al so that the emo tions r ef lected in his w ritten sta tem entw ere a result o f his fe ar beca use “the y ’re tr y ing to throw

me i n pr is o n .” Bythe conc lus ion of his tes ti mony , app ell ant h ad c lai med that the s her iff’s d e p a rt m ent i nv est ig ator , t he boy ’s mother and ste pfather, and the Chi ldren’ s A dv ocacy

C enter i nter v iew er all w ere ly ing , and that the b oy w as coerced int o telling the inte rv iew er thatapp ellant“li cked h is pee-pe e.” The ju ry fou n d a p p e llant g uil ty as ch arg ed i n the i ndi ctmentand ass ess ed puni shmentat impr is onment for l ife. Appel lan t w as sent enced acc ordin g ly and thi s a ppeal follo w ed.5 Ana ly sis Adm is si on of Ev ide nce of E

xtr aneous Of fens es T he o pen ing paragraph of the narrative in the w ritten sta tem entapp ellantsig ned in the sherif

f ’s of f ice read a s follows: W hen I w as about sev en y ears o ld, I w alk ed in on mymother hav ing sex w ith my fath er’s best f riend w hile she w as still ma rried to my fath er. Then w hen I g ot t o my

ear ly teen s, I w as ra ped i n the b a th ro o m show er at mysc hool by

anot her boy
. Then w hen I tur ned 17, my father took me to a w hore hou s e , b ut th ey turne d me down becau se I w as too y oun g. T hat ’s w hen my father took me to my mother and my dad tal ked her int o hav ing se x w ith me . She ne v er did an ything to stop it. I told Investig ato r Stevens t h is to ex pla in w hat h appened w it h my g ra ndson
. . . . W hen t he St ate o ffered th e s tatementi nto e vide n ce, appel lan t obj ect ed to adm ission of

thatope ning paragraph und er Rules of Ev iden ce 40 1, 40 2, 40 3 an d 40 4(b). The tr ial co urt ov er ru led hi s o bje cti ons. I n h is f irs t tw o i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends admis si on of the paragra p h wa s e rror bec ause ithad no rele v ance apar t from imp ermissible charact e r con formity, and beca use its preju dicial nat ure sub stan tially outw eighed a ny possib le proba tiv e v alue . W e disagree, a nd o v errule the point s of error. Und e r R u l e 4 0 1 , e v i d e n c e i s re l e v a n t i f i t ma k e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a fa c t that is of cons eq uence to the d eter minat ion of the a cti on more probabl e tha n i t woul d be w it hout the ev ide nce. Tex . R . Ev id. 401; Mo ses v. Sta te, 105 S.W .3d 622 , 625 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). Und er R ule 402, there is a presumpt ion of ad mis si bil ity of rele v ant ev ide nce. Tex
. R. Ev id.6

402; Moses, 105 S.W .3d a t 625
. Un d e r Ru le 404 (b), ev iden ce of othe r cr ime s, w rongs, or acts is ina dm issible to prove a p erson ’s ch aracte r for t he p urpo se of showi ng action in conformity therewith. Tex. R. Ev id. 40 4(b); Montgom er y v . St ate, 810 S. W .2d 3 72, 3 87- 88 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1991) ( op. o n reh’ g ). See al so Cas ey v. State, 215 S.W .3d 8 70, 8 79 (Tex .Crim .A p p . 200 7) , citi ng Johnston v

. St ate, 145 S.W .3d 2 15, 2 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. One p ro per

purpo se u n der

R ule 404( b) for a dmis si on of rele v ant e xtraneous c o n d u c t e v i d e n c e i s t o re b u t a d e fe n s i v e t h e o r y . Po we ll v. Sta te , 63 S.W .3d 4 35, 4 38 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2001) ; Ran somv. Sta te , 920 S.W .2d 288, 301 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ( op. on reh’ g ). The tr ial co urt’ s d e cis io n wh e ther t o admi t ev ide nce under R ule 404( b) w il l be uphel d on appeal abs ent a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d a t 391
. T hus, w e w il l not i ntercede as lon g as the tr ial co urt' s ru lin g was at l eastw it hin the z one of re asona ble di sag re ement. Id
. Extrane o u s o ffense ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e i f it re buts a de fensiv e the or y by show ing , for ex ample, abs ence of mist ake or ac ci dent. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d at 38 7- 88. The conte ntion thathis conta ct w ith the boy’s pen is w as accide nta l w as a cent ral part of appell ant’ s d efense. Dur ing couns el’ s openi ng sta tement he tol d the j ur y he e x pect ed the e vid e n c e t o sho w

thatapp ellantdid notinten tiona lly or know ingly

conta ct the boy’s pen is. Likew ise, ap pellan t testif ied that any conta ct he ha d w ith the pen is w as accide nta l. He tol d the jur

y at one poi nt, “[ m]y chi n may hav e touc hed it
. . . may be w it h my ch in. Bu t itw as an ac ci dent. I di d notl ic k i t.” Thi s t heor y w a s re -u rg ed i n c ounse l’ s c los ing arg ument. The tr ial co urt reason abl y co uld hav e det er mined that th e c ontent s o f the obje cted -to para gra p h o f a ppe llant’s w ritten sta tem enthad relev ance beyond m ereSimilarly, the evi den ce reaso nab ly m ay be sa id to ha v e relevance to the culp able 5 m e n ta l sta te w it h w hic h appel lan t acted. See T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 6
. 0 3 ( b ) ( V e r non 200 3) (prov iding thata p erson acts knowingl y w hen he is aw are of

the na ture of

his cond uct). 7 charact er

co nformity . Ev ide nce that appel lan t had b e en s ubj ect ed to unus ual se x ual ev ents i n his yo u th a n d t hat h e rela ted t hose ev ents to the a ll eg ed s ex ual as saul t of the v ictim he re t end s t o rebu t a cont ent ion tha t any co nta ct w ith the ch ild’s p enis w as simp ly an ac ci dent. 5 Appel lan t reli es on Ki

rby v . St ate, 208 S.W .3d 568 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2006, no p et.) to sup port his po sition th at th e extraneo us con ductev iden ce ad mitt ed a t trial w as error. There, the cour

t hel d tha t app ell ant’ s h is tor y as the v icti m of sex ual abus e w as improper charact er

ev ide nce under

R ule 404( b)
. Id
. at 572. In Ki rby, t he St ate e li ci ted t est imony from a de tecti v e reg ard in g the defendant’ s h is tor y of sex ual abus e for the p ur pose of show ing thatbec ause appel lan t w as a v icti m of pa st sex ual abuse , she w as more li kel y to hav e c ommitt ed th e offense charg ed. Id. Tw o facto rs di s ti ng ui s h th e c as e atb ar from Ki rby . Unl ik e the ev ide nce in that cas e, here the evidence w as provided throu gh a ppe llant’s own sta tem ent s mad e in the course of hi s admittedl y v olu ntar y w ri tten sta tement to a law enforc ement o f f ice r. An d, sign if ica n tl y, the c our

t i n Ki rby n o t e d t h a tt h e S t a t e d id n o tm a k e t h e a rg u m e n twe h a ve acc epted, thatthe ev ide nce w as re lev ant t o rebut a defensi v e i ss ue. Ki rby, 208 S. W .3d at 57 3 n.6
. Ki

rby does not ass is t app ell ant.8

App ellantalso advance d an object ion t o the ev iden ce un der Rule 40 3, w hich provides thatrelev antev iden ce ma y be exclud e d if

its probat iv e v alue is substan tially outw eig hed by

the dang er of un fair preju dic e. Tex . R . Ev id. 403. W e appl y the abuse of discretion stand ard w hen ana lyz ing the trial court’s decision to admit ev iden ce over a R ule 403 obj ect ion
. Montg om ery, 810 S.W .2d at 391. A tr ial co urt mus t bal ance (1 ) the i nherent probati v e forc e of the proffered i tem of evide n ce alo ng w it h ( 2) the proponent 's need for that ev ide nce ag ain st (3 ) any tendency of t he ev ide nce to sug g est deci si on on an i mprop er basis, (4) any tend ency of the evidence to conf use o r distract the jury f rom th e ma in issues, (5 ) any tendency of t he ev ide nce to be g iv en undue w eig ht by a jur y that has n o t been eq uip ped t o ev alu ate t he probati v e forc e of the ev id e n ce , and ( 6) the li kel iho od th at prese nta tion o f

the evidence w ill con sum e an inordin ate amo untof time o r repe at evidence already admi tted. Cas ey v. State, 215 S.W .3d 870, 880 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; W heeler v. State, 67 S .W .3d 8 79, 8 88 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. Rule 40 3 did no t re qu ir e ex clusion o f the cha llenged pa ragraph of app ellant ’s sta tement. In the cont ext of ap pel lan t’ s s tatementto the i nv est ig ator , w e find the c ontent s of the pa ragraph strongly proba tiv e of

the fact his imp rope r contactw ith the child w as a cons ci ous and k now ing a ctand not a n “ acc ide nt.” O f the three ev ents menti oned i n the parag ra ph, o nly

the las t, inv olv ing appel lan t’ s s ex ual contact w it h his mother , c ar ri ed any g re at r is k o f dis tract ing the jur y from t he i ss ues bei ng tr ied
. The ev ide nce took no addi ti onal ti me to dev elo p i nit ial ly , and w as menti oned ag ain dur in g the tr ial onl y w hen appel lan t t ook the s tand and de n ie d maki ng so me of the s tatement s t he i nv est ig atorThe s ta te m e nt he had sex w it h hi s mot her

w as one of the sta tements appel lan t 6 deni ed. 9 re corded. Al though itd o e s not a ppear the Stat e had g re at ne ed for admis si on of the 6 chal len g ed parag ra ph, c onsi der ing al l of the factors, w e f ind no abuse of di sc re ti on i n the trial court’s overr uling of app ellant ’s Rule 403 obje ction. T he trial cou rt instructed the jury conc er nin g the li mite d pur poses for w hic h extraneous offense ev ide nce w as admitted. W e overrule appe llant’s f irst tw o issues on app eal. Den ial of Mi str ial In ap pellan t’s third issue, he conte nds th e trial court erred wh e n i td enie d his re q uestfor a mis tr ial
. As noted, dur ing a confro ntati onal conv ersat ion among appel lan t, his w ife an d the boy’s step fath er, app ellantmad e the state me nt, “F ine, I did i t. I did it just like I did it to A n d re a . ” T h e state me nt w as revealed to the jury during the St ate ’s examina tion o f

the boy’ s step fath er, in his answer to a q uest ion askin g abo ut ap pellan t’s re spons e to the b oy ’s o u tc ry s tatement
. The tes ti mony i ndi cat es appel lan t made the sta tement in re spons e to an ang ry q uest ion from his w ife, an d the w it ness sa id appel lan t made the st atement “fli ppantl y [and ] of fhandedly .” The w it ness later agreed the s tatement w as made s arcas ti cal ly
. The tr ial co urt s ust ain ed appe lla nt’ s o bje cti on to the sta tement and i nst ru cte d the j ur

y to dis re g ard i t, but d eni ed appe ll ant’ s req uestfor a mis tr ial
. W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s deni al of a mis tr ial under an a buse of dis creti on s tandard. Ladd v . St ate, 3 S .W .3d 5 47, 5 67 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. See als o Ar chi e v . St ate, 221 S.W .3d 6 95, 6 99- 700 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. Mi stria l is a dev ic e us ed to hal t t ri al10

proce edin gs w hen t he error is so prejud icial that expen diture of f urthe r time an d expense w oul d be w ast eful and futil e. Ladd, 3 S .W .3d a t 567
. To deter mine w hether a g iv en er ro r neces si tates a mi str ial , w e must ex amine the par ti cul ar facts of t he c ase. Id. A mistrial is onl y req uired w hen t he i mprop ri ety i s c lea rl y ca lc ula ted to infla me the minds of t he j ur y and is of suc h a c haract er as to sug g e stthe impos si bil ity of w it hdraw ing the impress ion produce d on the minds of the j ur y . Hi nojosa v. State, 4 S .W .3d 2 40, 2 53 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1999)
. See al

so Hawk ins v. Sta te, 135 S.W .3d 72, 77 (Tex.Cri m. App
. 200 4) (o n ly in extreme ci rc umstan ces , w here the preju dic e i s i ncurabl e, w il l a mi str ial be req uired)
. W hen t he tr ial co urt in st ructs a j ur y to dis re g ard, w e presume the j ur y foll ow s t he tr ial cour t’ s ins tr uct ion s. W

ald o v . St ate, 746 S.W .2d 7 50, 7 53 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988)
. See als o Dr ake v. State, 123 S.W .3d 596 , 604 (Tex.App .–Hou son [1 4 Dist.] 2003 , pet . ref ’d), th citi ng Ladd , 3 S.W .3d at5 6 7 as quoti ng Ga rd ner v. Sta te, 730 S.W .2d 6 75, 6 96 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 1987 ) ( en b anc). I n d e t e rm in in g t h e e f f ic a c y o f cu ra t ive in s t ru c t io n s , we mayco nsi der

the follo w ing factors: (1 ) the na tu re o f t h e er ro r; ( 2) the persi ste nce of the pro se cu ti o n i n c ommitt ing the er ro r; ( 3) the flag ra ncy of the v iol ati on; ( 4) the par ti cul ar ins tr uct ion g iv en; ( 5) the w eig ht of i ncr imi nati ng ev ide nce; and (6 ) the h ar m to t he ac cus ed as measured by

se v er ity of the s entenc e. W

aldo, 746 S.W .2d a t 754
. The s t a t e me n t o f w h i c h a p p e l l a n t c o mp l a i n s h e re w a s v a g u e a n d n o t s o li ci ted b y the S tate. Test imony

w as cl ear

thatthe sta tement w a s m a d e sarc ast ic all y or , as the w it ness sa id, “ flipp antl y .” The cont ext in w hic h the sta tement w as made s houl d hav e been cl ear to the j ur

y . The Stat e di d notdw ell on t he s tatement , and the in cident in v olv ing11

“Andre a” w as no t me ntion ed a gain during the g uilt-inno cence pha se of trial. The court did not a buse it s d is creti on by deny ing the mis tr ial
. W e overrule appe llant’s third issue on ap pea l. Factu al Suff

iciency of Evidence In appel lan t’ s l asti ss ue, h e req uest s t h a t we re v iew the re cord to ins ure tha t t he evidence a ppe llant inte ntion ally and knowi ngly

cause d his mo uth to cont act th e bo y ’s penis meets the s ta n d ard of factual su ff ic ien cy . W e hav e done so, and ov er ru le the p oin t of error. App ellant ’s w ritten state me nt to the sh erif f ’s o f f ice inv estigator ad mitt ed to conta ct betw een hi s mout h and the b oy ’s peni s, under ci rc umstan ces by

w hic h the j ur

y co uld i nfer tha t the conta ct w as inte ntion al or knowi ng. The boy’s state m e n t s t o h is moth er, his ste pfather, hi s g ra ndmother and the i nter

v iew er ce rt ain ly

reflec t in te nti onal or

kn ow ing c o n t a c t
. T h e ju ry vi e we d t h e vid e o o f t h e b o y’s in t e rvi e w. Dur in g h i s t r i a l t e s t i mo n y , t h e b o y , t h e n s i x y e a rs o l d , fre q u e n t l y w a s n onre spons iv e. W hen as ked about w hat h appened the nig ht he w ent to s pend t he ni g ht w it h P a w P a w, h e s t a t e d , “I d o n ’tre m e m b e r t h a t , t o o . ” He a ls o re p e a t e d ly s t a t e d “I d o n ’tkn o w” w hen ask e d a b o u tt he e v ent s of thatday and his interview at the Children’s Advocacy Cen ter . The boy

acknow led g ed he did not w ant Paw Paw to g et i nto t ro ubl e. W hen t he prosec utor

as ked, “ w hat did [Paw Paw] do to y our

pee- pee?” , t he boy

respon ded “ A l ong ti me ag o.” On further q uest ion ing , he ack now led g ed th at ap pel lan t pul led hi s p ants dow n.12

He deni ed that appel lan t touc hed or li ck ed his “p ee- pee,” but agre e d th a t w hatev er hap p e n e d s c a re d him and mad e him nervous. He also ackno w ledged th at he told his mother abouti t and tol d her

“ [t] he tr uth.” H e s tated on t he s tand, how ev er , t hat h e di d not “know” thator “rem em ber it.” The jur y w as free to re

ject appel lan t’ s w it ness -s tand ex pla nati on of the ev ents and his co ntent ion othe r w it ness es w ere l y ing , and belie v e inst ead that appell ant t old the tr uth to th e investig ato r. The j ur y al so re asona bly

co u ld h a ve b eli ev ed th e boy tol d the interview er the trut h de spite h is initial relucta n c e t o d is cuss the ev ent s, and reason ably could have fo und the bo y ’s rep e ate d an d con sistentdescription s of app ellant ’s actions, giv en sh ortlyaf

ter the ev ent s, mo re believable th an h is te s timo ny at trial. Th e evidence supp orting appe llant’s con v iction w as no t “too w eak” to supp ort the jury ’s v erdict no r, cons ide ri ng the cont ra ry ev ide nce, w as the v erdict ag ain st the g re at weigh t and preponderance of the ev ide nce. See Laster v. Sta te, 275 S.W .3d 512, 518 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2009) ; Watson v. State , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 14- 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ( both setti ng forth the stand ard for factu al suf f iciency)
. Accordin gly , w e overrule appe llant’s last po int o f e rror and af

f irm the trial court’s jud g ment. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.