NO. 07-06 -008 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B NO VEM BER6, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ MAT T HEW W AYNE BAILE Y, APPELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO . 16, 601-A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ma tthew

W ay ne Bai ley , app eal s from hi s c onv ict io n for one countof ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t and one count of i ndece ncy w it h a chi ld and t he s entenc es of 20 y ears i ncarcerati on on the a g g ra v ated sex ual as sa u lta nd fiv e y ears i ncarcerati on on the i ndece ncy

w it h a c hil d, al l per iod s o f inc arcerati on to be s er v ed i n the Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion of the Texas De p a rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce, and the s entenc es to be se rv ed c on s ec ut i v el y . W e affi r m.This i s t he term the v icti m used throug hout the t ri al to de sc ri be bot h her g eni tal and 1 ana l areas. 2 Backg ro und On Nov ember 14, 2005, Fant asi a Bai ley , the mother of t he minor v icti m and w ife of appel lan t, noti ced that the v icti m, her three y ear old daug hter , w as sc ra tch ing and ru bbi ng her g eni tal area. Fant asi a i nq uired w hy the v icti m w as sc ra tch ing and ru bbi ng in tha t area and , ultima tely, the v ictim adv ised that appellan t had “stuck his f inger in my butt .” Shortly

1 t h e re a f t e r , Fa n t a s ia t o o kt h e vic t im t o No rt h we s tT e xa s Ho s p it a l fo r a ra p e e xa m b y a sex ual as saul t nurse ex aminer ( SAN E N urse) . Dur ing the ex am, th e v icti m ag ain al leg ed that appel lan t had st uck hi s fin g er

i n her buttw h ile p o intin g to the female se x ual org an. The v icti m further re layed detai ls of t he ev ent to the S AN E N urse. The examinat ion di d not rev eal an y

sig ns of traum a suf

fered bythe victim. Detective Brian W allace o f the Ama rill o Pol ic e D epar

tment w as sentto th e h ospi tal to beg in tak ing i nformati on abou t t he all eg ati ons of sex ual abus e. W all ace spok e to Fant asi a aboutthe all eg ati ons. L a t e r t h a t n i g h t , W a l l a c e w e n t t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s h o me t o s p e a k w i t h h i m a b out t he all eg ati ons. U pon ar ri v ing at appel lan t’ s h ome, W all ace noti ced a v ehi cl e ar ri v e and three men ex itthe v ehi cl e g oin g toward the hous e. Beca use of the number of peopl e at the house , W all ace cal led for ass is tanc e and two uni formed off ic ers came to th e resi dence

. W all ace then w ent t o the d oor of the h ouse and as ked to s ee appe ll ant. W hen app ell ant cam e forw ard, W allace a dvised him of the allegation s and asked him to come to the po lice sta ti on to g iv e a s tatement

. Appel lan t ag re ed and rode to the pol ic e stati on in the s q uad car of the u nifor med off ic ers. Appel lan t g av e a s tatement , after recei v ing hi s “ Mi ra nda”Miranda v. Ariz ona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 160 2, 16 L.Ed .2d 694 (1966 ). 2 3 w ar nin g s. Ap pel lan t’ s s tatementtend ed to pl ace the b lame on th e v icti m w ho appe ll ant

2 cl aimed w as act ing out sex ual ly

. T h e da y af

te r th e ou tc ry, th e victi m was int e rvie wed b y Ap ril Le m m in g a t th e Bri d ge Chi ldren’ s Adv ocacy

C enter ( The Br idg e)

. The v icti m ag ain sta ted w hat had occ ur re d and a s a r e s u l to f

t h e in t e rvi e w, t h e vic t im wa s re fe rre d t o a p ri va t e t h e ra p is t , Mo ll y Ra f fe rt y. Ra f fe rty be gan se e in g th e victi m in No vem b e r 2 0 0 5 a n d c o n ti n u e d t o se e he r up th ro u gh the t ri al date. App ellantproc e e d e d t o t rial on one coun t of agg rav ate d sexual assau lt and six cou n ts o f indec ency

w it h a c hil d. The Stat e s ubseq uentl y w aiv ed th e l astco unt o f ind ecency

w it h a c hil d. The ju ry

co nv icted o n the a g g ra v ated sex ual as saul t c ount and one countof ind ecency

w it h a c hil d w hil e findi n g a p p e lla n t not g uil ty of four ot her

co unts of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d. Appel lan t br ing s s ix i ss ues to t his co urt w hic h may al l be c las si fied as cha llenges to the legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence in three pa rticular areas. Spec ific all y , app ell ant q uest ion s w hether t h e e vidence was 1) su ff ic ien t t o prov e tha t penetrati on oc cur re d; 2)su ff ic ien t t o prov e anyacts occ ur re d w it h the intent to arouse and g ra ti fy any one s exua lly; or 3)su ff ic ien t t o prov e s ex ual co ntact. W e di sag re e w it h appel lan t.4 Standa rd of Rev iew Appel lan t c ontends that the ev ide nce is both l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rthi s c onv icti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t and i ndecen cy wit h a ch il d. W hen rev iew ing challenges to bo th th e legal and factu al s uf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort the v erdict, w e f irst re v iew the leg al suffici ency

ch all eng e. See C lew is v . St ate, 922 S. W .2d 126, 133 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)

. If the ev ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ient, we the n rev iew the factual su ff ic ien cy

ch all eng e. See i d. In as ses si ng the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce, w e rev iew all the ev ide nce in the li gh tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e ve rd ic tt o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n y ra t io n a l t ri e r o f fa ctco u ld h a ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e b e yo n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t

. J a c k s o n v. Vi rg in i a , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S

. C t

. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; R o s s v . S t a t e , 1 33 S.W .3d 6 18, 6 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)

. In c onducti ng a l eg al suffici enc y re vi ew , an app ellate court ma y

not sit as a th irteen th juror, b u tr a t h er mu st uph old th e jury ’s v erdict unl ess i t i s i rrati onal or

uns uppor

ted b y more tha n a mere modic um of ev ide nce. M oreno v . Stat e, 75 5 S.W .2d 866 , 867 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 8). W hen an ap pellan t challen ges the factu al suf f iciency of the evidence su ppo rting his conv icti on, t he rev iew ing cour t must deter mine w hether , c onsi der ing al l the e v ide nce in a neutral li g ht, the j ur

y was ra tional ly

j ust ified i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty beyond a re asona ble doubt

. See W ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04, 4 15 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)

. In performin g a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e m u s tg ive deferen ce to th e fact f inde r’s d e t e rm in a t io n s i f

s u p p o rt e d b y e vid e n c e a n d m a y n o to rd e r a n e w tr ia l s im p ly b e c a u s e we5

maydi sag re e w it h the verdict. See id. at 417. As an appel lat e court, w e are notj ust ified in order ing a ne w

tr ial unl ess there i s s ome obj ect iv e basi s i n the record demons trati ng that the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j ur y ’s v erdict. See id. Addi ti onal ly , an appel lat e opi nio n address ing factual su ff ic ien cy musti ncl ude a dis cus si on of t he mo s t i mp or

ta nt ev i de nc e th at ap pe l l an t c l ai ms u nd er mi ne s t he j ur y ’ s v erdi ct. S i ms v . Stat e, 99 S.W .3d 600 , 603 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 3). Agg rav ate d Sexual Assau lt Appel lan t’ s firs t is sue conc er ns the offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t. Appel lan t w as ind icted for

the offense of ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t und er se cti on 22.021( a) (1 )( B) (i )( 2) (B ) of the Tex as Penal C ode. The in dictment all eg ed th at ap pel lan t “.

. . inten ti onal ly

and know ing ly

caused the penetrati on of the female sex ual org an of [th e v ictim], a child y oun ger than 14 y ears w ho was not the spou se. . .” of app ellant . It is app ellant ’s conte ntion thatthe evidence supp orting the Sta te’s case is legally a nd factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o prov e the el ement of penet ra ti on. App ellantis correct w hen he po sits thatin a sex ual assa ult case , the State must prov e act ual penetrati on. Peac ock v . St ate, 819 S. W .2d 2 33, 2 36 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1991, no p et.). H o we ve r, a p p ellantf urthe r posits tha t the testim ony of a 34 m ont h old child w it hou t a n y

medi cal ev ide nce of phy si cal trauma to the g eni tal reg ion i s i nsuffici ent t o prov e penet ra ti on. The re cord reflects thatthe v icti m tes ti fied buthad difficul ty i n rela ti ng the all eg ed events du ring direct examin ation . Upo n examina tion by the S tate , the victim state d she did6

not want t o s ay

w hat t he appe ll ant d id to he r. F urther , s he te sti fied th at itm ade her ner v ous to s ay

w hat h e di d. Howev er , dur ing direct ex aminat ion the v icti m did aff ir m that w hat s he had tol d “ the l ady ” ( Lemming ) at The Br idg e w as the tru th. Subs eq uentl y , dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , t he foll ow ing co ll oq uy took pl ace; Q. Hon , w hen you s aid thatyour daddy put his fing er

i n you– A. (W it ness makes noi se. ) Q

. I ’m s o rry? A. Oh, I’m nervous. Q. I k now

I sai d i t. W as thi s– w as thi s o n the co uch? A. (M ov ing head up and dow n.) Q. Oka y . W as iti n the den? A. Huh -u h. Q. It w asn’ t i n the den? A. The l i v i ng roo m. Addi ti onal ly , th e r e cord fur ther rev eal s t hat L emming , from The Br idg e tes ti fied abou t int er v iew ing the v icti m. The DV D of t he int er v iew w as admitted i nto e v ide nce and pl ay ed for the jury. T his testim ony included state me nts by the v ictim tha t her fat her ha d pu t his fing ers i n her

butt

. The v icti m’s therapi st, M oll y R afferty al so tes ti fied. She t est ified that the v icti m tol d her

abouther

father pl aci ng hi s fin g er

i n her butt

. T h e t e s t im o n y o f

t h e vic t im wa s h e s it a n t , im p re c is e a n d la c k e d t h e cl a ri ty t h a twe woul d ex pectof an ol der and more mature w it ness . Vi ll alo n v . Stat e, 79 1 S. W .2d 1 30, 1 34 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 90). T exas co urts have long reco gniz ed this prob lem in sex ual assa ult cas es involv ing young ch il dren. As a re sul t, we g iv e w ide l ati tude to c hil d v icti ms of se x ual7

abuse . Se e i d. W e do not req uire t h a t a chil d v icti m’s tes ti mony be c or ro borated by medic al ev ide nce. Sa ndov al v . State, 52 S .W .3d 8 51, 8 54 n. 1 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, pe t. re f’d)

. In fact , t he unc or ro borated tes ti mony of the c hil d v icti m about penetrati on i s c lea rl y

su ff ic ien t t o s ust ain a c onv icti on. T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.07 (V er non Su pp. 2 001)

. Howev er , i n thi s c ase there i s a ls o the tes ti mony of the o ther w it ness es about the v icti m’s recoun ti ng of the e v ents

. In each cas e, t he w it ness recal led the v icti m re lay ing the same fact s. It w as up to the jur y to hear thi s e v ide nce and mak e a deter minat ion aboutthe credi bil ity of the chi ld’ s tes ti mony . Sosa v . St ate, 177 S. W .3d 2 27, 229 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2005, no p et.)

. W e w il l not s et as a t hir teent h j uror

and st sec ond g uess the jur

y . Mo re no, 7 55 S. W .2d a t 867. V ie wing the e v ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict , we cann ot s ay thatthe jur

y ’s dec is ion w as ir ra ti onal or suppo rt ed by

onl y a modi cum of ev ide nce. I d. Therefore, the ev ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ien t. Havi ng rev iew ed th e evidence in det ermin ing the question of legal suff iciency, i t is app aren t tha t, even w hen v iew ed in a n eut ral lig ht, th e evidence is l ikew ise factu ally suffici ent to s uppor

t proof bey ond a re asona ble doubton t he el ement of penet ra ti on. W ats on, 2 04 S. W .3d a t 415

. To hol d oth er w is e w oul d be to refuse to g iv e the dec is ion of the j ur y the ki nd of deferenc e the sa me i s d ue. I d. As to the mos t i mport ant e v ide nce that appel lan t c lai ms und er mines the jur y ’s v erdict, iti s n othi ng more tha n a s tatement that the medical ev ide nce did not re flectany trauma and, therefore, there c oul d hav e been no penetrati on. As sta ted a bov e, t he te sti mony of the c hil d v ict im a lo n e w as suffici ent t o prov e thi s i ss u e b e yond a reason abl e doubt . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 38.07 (V er non Su pp. 2 001) . Lik ew is e, the SANE nurse test ified about her ex per ien ce in faili ng8

to find trauma i n ev er

y vi cti m and w hat, if anythi ng , that prov ed as to w hether the inc ide nt occ ur re d. The ju ry

heard thi s e vide nce and ev alu ated the s ame, as was it s d uty and prerog ati v e, and w e must be deferent ial to the deci si on. Rob erts v . State, 220 S.W .3d 5 21, 524 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7). B ased u pon t his rev iew , w e cann ot po int to an y object iv e fact that lea ds us to s ay thatthe ju ry’ s d eci si on was ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of

the evidence . W atso n , 204 S.W .3d at 417 . W e overrule appe llant’s is sue that the e v ide nce w as factual ly i nsuffici ent o n the el ement of penet ra ti on. Ind ecen cy

W ith a Child Next, appel lan t c ontends thatthe ev ide nce is le gally and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o p ro ve two di f

fe re n t e le m e n ts of

th e of fe n se of in d e ce n cy w it h a ch ild . T o pro ve a ch a rge of indec ency

w it h a c hil d, as i ndi cte d herein , t he St ate mus t prov e that there was sex ual cont actby

appel lan t .

. . w it h i ntentto arouse and g ra ti fy the s ex ual des ire of any person. T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 21. 11( a) (1 )(Ve rn on Sup p. 20 01)

. Fi rs t, appel lan t c ontends the ev ide nce is i nsuffici ent t o prov e any al leg ed s ex ual co ntact w ith t h e c h ild w as done w it h the i ntentto arouse and g ra ti fy the s exua l d e si re of any person. Se cond, appel lan t cont ends that there was ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce that there was any se x ual co ntact w it h the v ictim. W e w ill add ress both conte ntion s. App ellant ’s primary cont ent io n i s t hatthere was no evi den ce sho w ing appe llant’s condu ct, hi s remarks, and al l the s ur ro undi ng ci rc umstan ces . Mc Kenzie v. Sta te, 617 S.W .2d 211 , 216 -17 (Te x .Crim.Ap p.1 981 ). H ence , app ellantconte nds th at th e Sta te did not p ro v e the co ntact was sex ual or with the i ntentto arouse or g ra ti fy any one. The9

ev ide nce in thi s c ase cons is ts of the te sti mony of the c hil d that th e t o uchi ng and penetrati on to ok pla ce on more tha n one occ asi on. The act s o f appell ant t ook pla ce w hen the mot her

was at wor k a nd appe ll ant was alo ne w it h th e vic ti m . The touc hin g and penetrati on oc cur re d i n the l iv ing room w hil e i t was dar k. Also , there w as the test imony of the o utc ry w it ness , the sta tement on the D VD and the s tatement s t o the treati ng co unsel or to esse ntially the same facts. Ad dition ally , the re is the state me nt of the ap pellan t w here he admi ts t h a t th e re m ay hav e been some t ouchi ng but itwas all due to t he acts of the v ictim in acting out

. T he app ellanta lso testif ied at trial th at he ma y have touch ed th e v ictim w hile pu tting some sort of med icine on h er genital area. W hen all of this evi den ce is v iewed to g ether , a jur

y coul d come t o the l og ic al conc lus ion thatappel lan t had i n fact had sex ual co ntact w it h the v icti m w it h the i ntentof arousi ng and g ra ti fyi ng h is o w n s ex ual desi re s . S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n b y t h e j u r y i s n o t i r ra t i o n a l a n d i s s u p p o rt e d b y mo re t h an a mo dicum of

ev iden ce. Mo re n o, 75 5 S.W .2d at 867 . Th erefore, th e evidence is l egally suffici ent o n the el ements of sex ual contact and the int ent t o arouse or g ra ti fy the s ex ual desi re of any

person. H av ing dete rmi ned t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ie nt on the el em en ts , w e no w

d et er mi ne w he th er

t he e v i de nc e i s factu al l y s uffi c i ento n tho s e s am e ele ments. C lew is , 922 S.W .2d a t 133

. Beca use the c ase involv ed c ontradi cto ry tes ti mony b e twe e n a p p e ll a n ta n d t h e S t a t e ’s wi t n e s s e s , t h e j u ry m u s td e t e rm in e t h e we ig h tt o gi ve each w it ness ’s tes ti mony . It is the jur y ’s dete rmi nati on of thi s typ e of ev ide nce that the app ellate court is req uired to g iv e de feren ce to in order to av oid intrud ing upon the jury’ s ro le as the s ole j udg e of the weigh t a nd c re dib il ity g iv en to w it ness tes ti mony . See John son v. State , 23 S. W .3d 1, 7 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 00). Unless th e a v ailable record clearlyrev eals a dif

feren t result is appro priate , an app ellate co urt mu st defer to the jury ’s10

det ermin ation conce rning w hatweig ht to giv e cont radicto ry testim onia l ev iden ce be cause re sol uti on of

ten tur ns on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity

and demeanor

of the w it ness w hen t he tes ti m o n y was g iv en. Id. at 8. Vi ew ing the ev ide nce in a neut ra l li g ht, w hil e deferr ing to the jury ’s d e t e rm in ation of w eight and credibility , it is evident th at th e jury was ration ally jus ti fied i n findi ng the appel lan t g uil ty beyond a re asona ble dou b t o n the el ements of sex ual co ntact and of the i ntentto a ro u se o r grati fy the s ex ual des ire of any person. W atso n, 20 4 S.W .3d at 415 . The refore, we ov errule ap pellan t’s conte ntion s. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s conte nti ons, w e af firm the judg ment of

the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.