1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

# COURT OF APPEALS SE CONDDIS T RICTOFT EXAS

FORT W ORTH NOS. 2- 07 - 37 5- CR 2- 07- 376- CR R I CH AR D MORG AN AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 4OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n f ourpoi nt s, A ppel l antRi char d M or gan m akes a con fr o n tati on cl ause chal l enge un derb o th the U ni t ed S t at es and Tex as C onst i t ut i ons t o evi dence excl uded underTexas R ul e ofEvi dence 4 12 ( t he “r ape shi e l d l aw ”) . H e al so c h a lle n g e st h e le g a l a n d f a c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c yo fe v id e n c e t o s u p p o rth is2

c o n v i c ti o n fo r a g g ra v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d y o u n g e r th a n fo u rte e n y e a rs o f a g e . W e a ffir m . II . F a c tu a la n d p ro c e d u ra lh i s to ry A g r a n d ju ryin d ic t e d A p p e lla n t f o r t w o c o u n t s o f in d e c e n c y w it h a c h ild a n d fi v e c o u n ts o f a g g ra v a te d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d . T h e c o m p l a i n a n t is K. W . , w ho w ast hi rt ee n year s ol d att he t i m e oft he al l ege d of f ens es . Appel l ant pl ea ded notgui l t y, an d t he ca sew ast r i ed t o a j ury. A r l i ngton Pol i ce O f f i cerM ary A l m y, assi gned t o t he j uveni l e uni t , t est i f i ed t hatshe r ecei ved i ni t i al i n f or m at i on abo utK . W . on D ecem ber11 , 20 06 , t hat K. W . w ast hi rt ee n year s ol d, and t hatshe w ast o be i nt ervi ew ed t he nex tda y, D ecem ber12 . A C PS i nvest i gat ori nt ervi ew ed K . W . o n D ecem ber1 2; O f f i cer A lm y o b s e rv e d t h e in t e rv ie w f r o m a m o n it o r h o o k e d t o a t w o -w a yc lo s e d c ir c u it t el evi si on. Pol i ceha d a de sc r i pt i on ofa su sp ec tby t hatt i m e, a pi ctur e o f A ppe l l antpr ovi ded by K. W . ’ s gr and m ot her , an d Appel l ant ’ s l as tna m e. I n t he i nt ervi ew , K. W . de ni ed anyt ypeofs exu alco nt ac tw i t h Appel l antt o t he C PS i nvest i gat or . K . W . al so deni ed any s exual cond uct w i t h A ppel l ant t o O ffi cer A l m y and otherpol i ce of f i cer s. A ta se con d i nt ervi ew w i t h t he sa m e C PS i nve st i gat ort he f ol l ow i ng da y, O ffi c e r A l m yo b se rve d th a t K .W . a d m i tted to e n g a g i n g i n se x u a l co n d u c t w i th th e s u s p e c t, w h o b yt h e n h a d b e e n i d e n ti fi e d a sA p p e l l a n t. T h e o ffice rs3

r ef er r ed K. W . t o Cook C hi l dr en’ s M edi ca l C ent erf ora C A RE t ea m ex am i nat i on. C rys t alU t l ey, a f or m erco l l eg e-l eve l pe di at r i c n ur si ng t ea che ran d m em berof th e C o o kC h i l d re n ’sC A R E te a m , p e rfo rm e d th e e x a m . S h e te s ti fi e d th a t K .W . pr ovi ded a hi st or y ofr ecentsexual act i vi t y i nvol vi ng vag i nal , anal , and or al i n terc o u rse . U tl e y ’s v i su a l ex a m w a s c o n sisten t w i th the se x u a l ac ti v i ty d e s c r ib e d b yK .W . S h e f o u n d a h e a le d t r a n s e c t io n o ft h e h y m e n , m e a n in g it w asa com pl et e t ea ral l t he w ay t o t he bas e. Buts he st at ed t hati tw asnot pos si bl e t o da t e t he t ea rsi nceheal i ng occu r s qui ck l y, an d t he t ea rco ul d ha ve occ ur r ed up t o a yea rbef or e t he exa m . She f ound no e vi den ceoft r aum a o ft he anus orvagi na. But she expl ai ned t hatan anal exam m ay be nor m al even af t er pen et r at i on. K .W . tes ti fi e d tha t sh e m e t A p p e l l a n t i n th e fal l o f 2 0 0 6 w h i l e l i v i n g w i th hergr andm ot heri n an A r l i ngton condom i ni u m . A p pel l ant , a m ai nt enance w or keratt he com pl ex , h a d s een K . W . ar oun d t he com pl ex and i ni t i at ed con ver sa t i on w i t h K . W . b y a sk i ng f orhe rna m e. K. W . s t at ed t hatA ppe l l ant l at erl efta not e on t he passengerdoorofherf am i l y’ s t r uck, aski ng f orher phonenum ber ; she w r ot e hernum berdow n and gavei tt o A ppe l l antw hi l e h e w ai t ed outs i de. K . W . t est i f i ed t hat she t al ked t o hi m t hateveni ng and r eveal ed h e r a g e to A p p e l l a n t a n d h i sn e p h e w P .J . d u ri n g th e c o n v e rs a ti o n . K .W .4

t est i f i ed t hatA ppel l antr espond e d th a t “age di dn’ tm at t erand t hathe knew [s h e ] w a s1 3 a n d i t w a so k a y .” K . W . t est i fi e d that she and A ppel l antf i r star r anged t o see each ot her w hen K. W . w ass pen di ng t he ni ghtata f r i end ’ s apa rt m en t . K . W . ga ve A ppe l l ant di r ec t i ons t o her f r i end ’ s apa rt m ent , t ol d t he f r i end sh e w asm ee t i ng herbr ot her , and w al ked overt o A ppel l ant ’ s t r uck, w hi ch by t hen w as par ked i nsi de t he apart m entcom pl ex. K. W . st at ed t hatt he t w o ki ssed i nsi de t he t r uck a n d th a t A p p e l l a n t to u c h e d h e r b re a s ts w i th h i s h a n d s a n d m o u t h . K .W . te s ti fi e d th a t h e “ m i g h t h a v e to u c h e d [h e r] v a g i n a ” b u t i t w a s“ o v e r [h e r] pants . ” She t est i f i ed t hi s i nci dent l ast ed abou tthi rt y m i nutes . S he st at ed t hat

“ k is s in g a n d t o u c h in g ” o c c u r r e d in A p p e lla n t ’s m a r o o n c a rm u lt ip le t im e sin par ki ng a r ea s ar ound t he con dom i ni um co m pl ex. K. W . t es t i f i ed t hatt he nextm ee t i ng be t w ee n K. W . an d Appel l ant o c c u rr e d w h e n A p p e l l a n t pick e d K .W . u p a g a i n i n the m a roo n ca r an d d rov e o ff t he con d o m i n i um com pl ex t o an apart m entcom pl ex. K. W . t est i f i ed t hat A p p e l l a n t a s k e d h e r i f s h e “ w a n te d to g e t i n th e b a c ks e a t” a n d s h e s a i d “ y e s .” K . W . st at ed t hatshe t ook offhercl ot h e s, t hey had sex, i . e. , vagi nal i n te rc o u rs e , a n d A p p e l l a n t p e rfo rm e d o ra l s e xo n h e r. K .W . r e la t e d d e t a ilso fh e rn e x te n c o u n t e rw it h A p p e lla n ta ta m o t e l in A r lin g t o n w it h p in kd o o r sa n d p a lm t r e e so n t h e s i g n s . K .W . r e c a lle d t h a tit5

w as A ppel l ant ’ s i dea t o go t her e. The t w o had vag i nal i nt er cour se att he m ot el w h ile p o r n o g r a p h y , p a id f o rb yA p p e lla n t , p la y e d o n t h e t e le v is io n . F o rt h e ir nexten cou nt er , K. W . t es t i f i ed t hatA pp el l an tpi ck ed herup a the rj uni orhi gh sc hoolat9: 00 a. m . an d dr ovehe rt o a yel l ow housei n FortW ort h, w her e h e sa i d he l i ve d w i t h h i sg i r l f r i e n d . K. W . d e s c r i b e d t h e d o g st h a tw e r e i n t he hou se. W hi l e t her e, A ppel l antand K . W . had vagi nal i nt er cour se , and each p e r f o r m e d o r a l s e xo n t h e o t h e r . K .W . t e s t if ie d t h a tA p p e lla n th a d p r e v io u s ly g i v e n h e r a p o rno g rap h i c v i d e o tap e d e p i c ti n g fel l a ti o i n o rde r t o tea c h K .W . to p e rfo rm i t. K .W . a l s o te s ti fi e d th a t a n a l i n te rc o u rs e o c c u rre d w h i l e th e yw e re atthi s ho use an d t hati tw as pai nf ul forh er . K. W . st at ed t hatshe had t o cr aw l o u t th e w in d o w w h e n o th e rsa rri v e d a t th e h o u s e a n d h a d to j u m p o v e r a c h a i n l i n kfe n c e . A p p e l l a n t a l l e g e d l y h e l p e d h e r o v e r th e fe n c e to g e t to th e c a r. K .W . t e s t if ie d t h a tA p p e lla n tt o ld h e rt o t e ll p e o p le t h a ts h e w a s“ h islitt le s i s te r”i f s h e w e re e v e r q u e s ti o n e d a b o u t w h yth e yw e re to g e th e r. Th e l astencoun t erbet w ee n K .W . and A ppel l antoccur r ed i n D ecem ber 2 0 0 6 , w h e n A p p e lla n tt h r e w s o m e t h in g a t K .W .’ sw in d o w la t e a tn ig h ta n d t o ld he rt ha th e w ou l d c om e ba c kan d pi c kh e ru p. He pi c k e d he ru p a ta r ou nd 2: 00 a .m . in a b la c k t r u c k a n d s u g g e s t e d s h e b r in g b la n k e t s . A p p e lla n tb r o u g h th is nep hew P. J. , an d t he t hr ee w ent t o a n e l em ent ary s cho ol . Appel l antt ol d P. J. t o pa r k t he ca rw hi l e h e a nd K. W . w entove rt o a n ar ea nea r t he ext er i oroft he6

school and engag ed i n vagi nal i nt er cour se on t he bl anket s un deran aw ni ng ov er a si dew al k. W hen t hey r et ur ned t o t he cond om i ni um s, K . W . saw hergr andm ot her outs i de w ai t i ng f orher ; A ppel l antl etK . W . outoft he caraw ay f r om her con dom i ni um . K. W . t es t i f i ed t hathe rgr and m ot herw asups etan d c ryi ng a nd t hatshe had cal l ed t he pol i ce. K. W . st at ed t hatshe di d not t el l her gr andm ot her or t he pol i ce t he “t r ut h” abou t any s exual cond uct at th a t t i m e. She t ol d he rgr and m ot hera st ory t hats he m adeup— t hats he had be en w i t h a guy n am ed Er i c. K . W . t est i f i ed t hat pol i ce of f i cer s t ook her t o t he A r l i ngton P ol i ce D e p a rtm e n t w h e re a C P S w o rk e r n a m e d E m i l yJ a m a d a in te rv i e w e d h e r. K .W . con f i r m ed t hats he t ol d Ja m ada “ not hi ng ha ppe ned . ” K . W . di d notkn ow A ppe l l ant ’ s f i r stna m e a tt hatt i m e; she as su m ed i tw as“A m ber ” bec aus e s he had see n t hatnam e t att ooe d on oneofA ppe l l ant ’ s ar m s and “ M or gan ” on t he ot her . The po l i c e obt ai ned a pho t ogr aph of A ppel l antt hathergr andm ot her f ound hi dde n be hi nd he rdr es se r , asw el l asK. W . ’ s cel l phon e c ont ai ni ng v o i c e m a i l m e ss a g e s from A p p e l l a n t. K .W . s ta te d th a t s h e l a te r ta l k e d w i th h e r b ro th e r, w h o w a stw e n tyy e a rs ol d and “ver y und er st andi ng, ” and t hatshe t ol d hi m w hath ad r eal l y happ ened w i t h Appel l ant . She t hen t ol d he rgr and m ot herab outt he se xua l na t ur e o ft he7

rel a ti o n sh i p b e fo re retu rning to th e p o l i c e d e p a rt m e n t t o ag a i n sp e a kw i th Jam ada. K. W . t est i f i ed t hatshe t ol d Jam ada det ai l s abouti nst ances ofsexual c o n d u c t w i th A p p e l l a n t at tha t t i m e . W i th O ffi c e r A l m y , sh e v i e w e d a p h o to l i neu p a nd pi ck ed outA ppe l l ant ’ s phot o. The po l i ceha d K. W . “ t ext ” A ppe l l ant , w ho r et ur ned he rca l l t he nextda y. K . W . conf i r m ed t hatpol i ce r ecor ded A ppel l ant ’ s con ver sat i on w i t h her , w hi ch A ppe l l antur ged he rt o hi de t he phot ogr aph ofhi m se l f t hat he had gi ven he ran d t o l d h e r t o s a y t h a t s h e h a d b e e n w i t h h i s n e p h e w , P . J . , i f s h e w er e a sk ed. K. W . ac kno w l edg ed t hat A ppe l l ant w as con ce r ned abo ut bei ng ar r es t ed i ft he pol i cef ound hi s pi ct ur e. The St at e i nt r oduc ed t he r ec or di ng a nd ph ot ogr aph of A ppe l l anti nt o e vi den ceal on g w i t h pho t ogr aph s oft he yel l ow hous e w i t h t he dogsan d t he cha i n l i nk f enc e, t he m ar oon c ars i t t i ng i n t he dr i vew ay oft he hou se, and pho t ogr aphs ofA ppel l ant ’ s t at t oos. A ppe l l ant ’ s si st er , ca l l ed by t he def ens e, test i f i ed t hats he w aspr es ent s e v e r a l m o n t h sla t e r w h e n K .W . c a lle d A p p e lla n t ’s g ir lf r ie n d , w h o p u tt h e c a ll on sp ea ke r phone so t hat A ppe l l ant ’ s si st er hea r d bot h end s oft he con ver sa t i on. A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ant ’ s si ste r, K . W . w as cryi ng, expr essed t hatshe w as “s o rry ,” an d sta ted tha t “sh e w a s fo rce d ” to te l l p o l i c e th a t s h e h a d se xw i th A ppe l l antbe ca us e h ergr and m ot herw ast hr ea t eni ng t o t hr ow he routan d s he had no w her e el se t o go, t hat t hey “f or ced [ her ] i nt o [ a] conf essi [ on] , ” and t hat8

sh e n eve rha d s ex w i t h Appel l ant ; “ i tne verha ppe ned . ” K. W . t es t i f i ed t hats he to l d A p p e l l a n t’s g i rl fr i e n d sh e w o u l d w ri te a l e tter stati n g tha t se xw i th A ppel l antneverhappen ed and t hatshe w oul d have been w i l l i ng t o l i e t o pr ot ect A p p e l l a n t b u t th a t s h e n e v e r w ro te th e l e tte r. T h e ju ryf o u n d A p p e lla n tg u ilt yo ft w o c o u n t so fin d e c e n c yw it h a c h ild a n d f iv e c o u n t so f a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u lt o f a c h ild . A p p e lla n t n o w a p p e a ls hi s convi ct i on on t he aggr avat ed sexual assaul tcounts . I I I . R i ght t o confront and cr oss- exam i ne w it ness underU nit ed S t at es and Texa s C ons t it ut i ons A ta hear i ng on pr e- t r i al m at t er s, t he S t at e r equest ed t hatK . W . be seat ed asa w i t nes s bef or e t he j ury w asbr oughti n. W hen s he w asca l l ed t o t es t i f y, K. W . w asbr oughtt o t he w i t nes s st and an d s ea t ed pr i ort o t he j ury ent er i ng t he cou rt r oom . Appel l antobj ec t ed t hatt he ent ry a nd s ea t i ng ofK . W . out si de t he j ury’ s pr esence, w i t h t he consequ enti n a b i l i t y ofany j ur y m em bert o see t hat sh e w aspr egn ant , vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtofco nf r ont at i on un dert he Texa s and U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut i ons because she had not t aken t he st and “i n a nor m al c a p a c i tya sa w i tn e s s . S h e h a sb e e n p l a c e d o n th e s ta n d p ri o r to th e j u ry ent er i ng t he r oom because she’ s appar ent l y pr egnan t . ” A ppel l antfurt herst at ed2 ... T h e t r ia l c o u rts t a t e d o n t h e r e c o r d , a tt h e t im e A p p e lla n tra is e d h is

o bje c t io n a n d a g a i n a t th e e n d o f th e tri a l , th a t i t h a d a l l o f th e S ta te ’s w i t nesses s eat ed bef or e t he j ur y w as broughti n, w i t h t he except i on of C ryst al U t l ey. 3 ... Becau se A ppel l anthas notar gued t hatt he pr ot ect i ons i n t he T exas C onst i t ut i on exceed ordi f f erf r om t he pr ot ect i ons i n t he U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut i on, w e onl y addr ess A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent s undert he U ni t ed S t at es C o n s ti tu ti o n . S e e A rno ld v. S tate , 8 7 3 S .W .2 d 2 7 , 3 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), cert. denied, 5 1 3 U .S . 8 3 0 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 1 0 3 (1 9 9 4 ). 9 t hatK. W . ’ s pr egn anc y m ay “h avea r el eva nti m pac ton hercr edi bi l i t y w i t h t he j ury. ” The t r i alco urtove r r ul ed hi s obj ec t i on. 2 A p p e lla n tc o n t e n d sb yh isf ir s tt w o p o in t st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtv io la t e d h is Si xt h a nd F ourt ee nt h Am end m entr i ght s unde rt he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on and hi s r i ght s unde r A rt i cl e I , Sect i on 10 oft he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on t o c onf r ont and cr os s- exa m i ne K. W . be caus e t he t r i alco urtpr ohi bi t ed hi m f r om s how i ng th e j u ry th a t K .W . w a s a p p a ren tl yp re g n a n t. 3A ppel l antar gues t hathe w as den i ed hi s r i ghtt o c onf r ont K. W . be ca us e h erap par entpr egn anc y s houl d not hav e b ee n e xcl ude d und erTexa s Rul e o f Evi den ce 412 be ca us e i tw asr el eva nt and pr oba t i ve t o de m ons t r at e “ bi asorm oti ve ” on herpa rtt o l i e a boutan y se xua l ac t i vi t y be t w ee n K. W . and A ppe l l ant . H e a l so ar gue s t hatt he pr oba t i ve val ue oft he evi dence ou t w ei ghed any dang erofunf ai rpr ej udi ce. The s t and ar d ofr evi ew f oran al l ege d vi ol at i on oft he con st i t ut i ona l r i ght to c o n fro n t a w i tn e s si sa b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . L agron ev. S tate , 9 42 S. W . 2d10

6 0 2 , 6 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 522 U . S . 917, 118 S. Ct . 305 ( 19 97 ) . “Tr i al j udg es r et ai n w i de l at i t ude i nsof aras t he C onfr ontat i on C l ause i s con ce r ned t o i m pos e r ea so nab l e l i m i t s on s uch cr os s- exa m i nat i on ba se d on con ce r ns abo ut , am ong ot her t hi ngs , har as sm ent , pr ej udi ce , con f us i on o ft he is s u e s , t h e w it n e s s ’[ s ] s a f e t y , o rin t e r r o g a t io n t h a tisre p e t it iv e o ro n ly m ar gi nal l y r el evant . ” D el a wa rev. V

a nA rs da l

l , 4 7 5 U .S . 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 5 (1 9 8 6 ); a c c ord Davi sv. Al a ska , 4 1 5 U .S . 3 0 8 , 3 1 6 , 9 4S . C t. 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 0 (1 9 7 4 ) (ho l d i n g ri g h t to c ros s-e x a m i n a ti o n i s “[s]ub j e c t al w a y s to t he br oad di sc r et i on ofa t r i alj udget o pr ec l uder epe t i t i ve and undu l y ha r as si ng i n te rro g a ti o n ” ); L a Po i n te v. S tate , 166 S . W . 3d 2 8 7 , 296 n. 11 ( Tex. A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d i s m ’d ). Each con f r ontat i on cl ause i ssu e m u st be w ei ghed on a case- by- case bas i s, ca r ef ul l y t ak i ng i nt o ac cou ntt he def end ant ’ s r i ghtt o c r os s- exa m i ne and th e ri s kfa c to rsa s s o c i a te d w i th th e a d m i s s i o n o f th e e v i d e n c e . L op ez v. S tate , 18 S. W . 3d 22 0, 22 2 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 00 ) . I n w ei ghi ng w het herevi dence m ust be adm i t t ed und ert he confr ontat i on cl ause, t he t r i al courtshoul d bal ance th e p rob a ti v e v a l u e o f t h e ev i d e n c e so u g h t to b e intro d u c e d a g a i n st th e ri ski ts a d m i s s i o n m a ye n ta i l . Id. T e x a sR u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 1 2 g o v e rn s th e a d m i s s i b i l i tyo f a c o m p l a i n a n t’s pr i ors e xu a l r e l a t i on s hi psw i t h t hi r d pa rt i e s i n a s e xu a l a s s a ul tc a s e . Te x. R.11

E v id . 4 1 2 . S p e c if ic in s t a n c e so fa v ic t im ’s p a s ts e x u a l c o n d u c ta r e in a d m is s ib le u n le s s(1 ) t h e e v id e n c e f a lls w it h in o n e o ff iv e c ir c u m s t a n c e slis t e d in ru le 412 ( b) ( 2) an d ( 2) t he t r i alco urtf i nd s t ha tthe pr oba t i ve val ue out w ei ghst he d a n g e r o f u n fa i r p rej u d i c e . Id. ; Bo ylev. S tate , 820 S. W . 2d 122 , 14 8 ( T ex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) (o p . o n re h ’g ) o verrule d o no th er gro un ds b yG o rdo nv. S tate , 80 1 S . W . 2d 89 9, 91 1 n . 13 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 90 ) . Rul e 41 2( b) pr ovi des: I n a pr os ec ut i on f ors exu alass aul toraggr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul t , or a ttem p t t o co m m i t se x u a l as sa u l t or a g g rav a ted se x u a l as sa u l t, evi den c e o fs pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e so fa n a l l e ge d vi c t i m ’ sp a s ts exual b e h a v i o r i sa l s o n o t a d m i s s i b l e , u n l e s s : (1 ) su c h ev i d e n c e i s a d m i tted in a c c o rda n c e w i th p a ra g ra p h s(c ) a n d (d ) o f th i sru l e ; ( 2) i ti s evi dence:

(A ) t h a ti sn e c e s s a ryt o re b u to re x p la in sc i ent i f i c o rm edi ca l ev i de nce of f er ed by th e S ta te ; ( B) of pas t se xua l beh avi or w i t h t he accused and i s of f er ed by t he accused upo n t he i ssue ofw het hert he al l eged vi ct i m co ns ent ed t o t he se xu al be hav i or w hi ch i s t he bas i s oft he of f ens e c har ged ; ( C ) t hatr el at est o t he m ot i ve orbi asoft he a lle g e d v ic t im ; (D ) i sa d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 6 0 9 ; o r ( E) t hati s con st i t ut i ona l l y r equ i r ed t o be adm i t t ed; an d4 ... “ Pas ts exu albehav i or ” hasbe en i nt er pr et ed t o i ncl udes exu albe hav i or

th a t o c c u rs“ b e fo re tri a l ” b u t a fte r th ea l l e g e d o ffe n s e . Cuyler v. S tate , 841 S. W . 2d 933, 93 6 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n 1992, no p et . ) . Rul e 412 gove r nst he adm i ss i on ofal l ev i den ceofext r ane ouss exu albe hav i oroft he com pl ai ni ng w i tn e s s , in c l u d i n g s e x u a l b e h a v i o r th a t o c c u rre d a fte r th e a l l e g e d o ffe n s e . Id . O ne oft he m ai n pol i cy r easons f orr u l e 4 12 i s t o pr eventabusi ve, e m b a rra s s i n g , a n d i rre l e v a n t i n q u i ri e si n to s e x u a l a s s a u l t v i c ti m s ’ l i v e s . Id . 12 (3 ) it sp r o b a t i v e v a lu e o u t w e ig h st h e d a n g e ro fu n f a ir p rej u d i c e . T e x . R . E v i d . 4 1 2 (b ). 4 The c ourtofcr i m i nalap pea l s hasex pr es se d t he r at i ona l e o fpr ovi si ons such as r ul e 41 2 b y st at i ng t hat evi den ceofa r apevi ct i m ’ s pri ors exu alac t i vi t y i s ofdubi ous pr oba t i ve val ue and r el eva ncean d i s hi ghl y e m bar r as si ng a nd pr ej u d i c i a l . Of t e n s u c h e v i d e n c e h a sb e e n u s e d t o h a r a s st he pr osecut i ng vi ct i m . Spo nsor s oft hese st atu tes assertt hatt hey enc our agevi ct i m s ofs exu alas sa ul tt o r epo rtt he cr i m esw i t hout f earofhavi ng t hei rpastsexual hi st or y exposed to t he pub l i c. A l lenv. S tate , 700 S . W . 2d 924 , 9 29 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1985 ) ( quot i ng Bel l v. Har r i son , 6 7 0 F .2 d 6 5 6 , 6 5 8 (6 th C i rc . 1 9 8 2 )). T h e rig h tt o c o n f r o n ta n d t o c r o s s -e x a m in e isn o ta b s o lu t e a n d m a y , in app r opr i at e c as es , bow t o a cc om m oda t e o t herl egi t i m at e i nt er es t s i n t he c ri m i n a l tri a l p ro c e s s . Id. at93 1 ( hol di ng sect i on 2 1. 13 ofth e T exas Penal C ode, t he pr ecurso r to r ul e 41 2, w as const i t ut i onal and di d not, on i t s f ace, v i o l a te th e a c c u s e d ’sri g h t to c o n fro n ta ti o n ); se e al soCham ber

s v. Mi ssi ssi ppi, 410 U . S. 2 84, 2 95, 9 3 S. C t . 1 038 , 1 046 ( 197 3) . M or eov er , t he C ons t i t ut i on13

r equi r es onl y t he i nt r odu ct i on of ot her w i se r el evantand adm i ssi bl e evi dence. See United Statesv. Ni xon , 4 1 8 U .S . 6 8 3 , 7 1 1 , 9 4S . C t. 3 0 9 0 , 3 1 0 9 (1 9 7 4 ). T h e tr i a l too kp l a c e o n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 7 , w h i c h

— a s th e S tate p o i n ts out— w as al m ostt en m onths af t erK . W . t ol d aut hor i t i es aboutt he sexual encou nt er s, m eani ng she w as i m pr egnated by som eone el se aft ert hese al l eged of f ens esoc cur r ed. K. W . ’ s cr edi bi l i t y w as an i ss ue i n t hi s ca sebe ca us e s he w as t he sol e w i t ness t o t he al l eged sexual condu ct byA ppel l ant . H er t est i m ony w as cont r adi ct ed by hero w n pr evi ous deni al s t hatany such cond uct had oc cur r ed. B ut h erpr egn anc y, by i t se l f , w asnotan i ndi ca t orofa m ot i ve o r b i a sto l i e . S ee Pe dro v. S tate , N o. 0 3- 06

- 00 06 6- C R , 20 07 W L 61 94 92 , at *6 ( Tex. A pp. — A us t i n Fe b. 27, 2007 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or publ i ca t i on) ( hol di ng“ evi den cei ndi ca t i ng Y. C . ha d i nt er cou r sew i t h som eon e ot hert han ap pel l antdoe s not , by i t se l f , t en d t o pr oveordi sp r ovet hats he w o u l d fa b ri c a te s e x u a l a s s a u l t c h a rg e sa g a i n s t th e a p p e l l a n t” ). W hen K . W . w as on t he w i t ness st and, t he j ur y had an un obst r uct ed vi ew o f h e r fa c e , s o th e y c o u l d o b s e rv e h e r d e m e a n o r a n d a s s e s sh e r c re d i b i l i ty . C f. Ro m ero v. S tate , 17 3 S . W . 3d 5 0 2 , 5 0 7 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) ( hol di ng t hat d e fen d a n t’ s r i g h t to c o n fr o n tati o n w a s i n fr i n g e d w h e n w i tn e ss w a s a l l o w e d to t e s t if yin a d is g u is e s h o w in g o n lyh ise a r s , t o p so fh isc h e e k sa n d b r id g e o fh is5 ... Th e Si xt h Am e nd m e ntp r ot e c t sf ou ra s pe c t so fc onf r on t a t i on : ( 1)

phys i ca l pr es enc e; ( 2) oa t h; ( 3) cr os s- exa m i nat i on; an d ( 4) obs ervat i on of d e m e a n o r b yth e tri e r o f fa c t. Ro m ero, 173 S. W . 3d at 505 ( ci t i ng Maryl and v. Cra ig , 497 U . S. 836, 845– 50, 110 S . Ct . 3 157 , 3164 –65 ( 199 0) ( f i ndi ng su ffi c i e n t a ss u ran c e o f rel i a b i l i ty i n a p roc e d u re al l o w i n g a c h i l d w i tn e s s to t est i f y by cl osed- ci r cui t te l evi si on t hatdeni ed one el em ent — physi cal pr es enc e— w hen t he ot her t hr ee w er e uni m pai r ed) ) . Absen tan y a r gum entby A p p e l l a n t oth e rw i se , w e w i l l as su m e tha t his co n ten ti o n h e re i s th a t t h e fou rt h el em ent — obser vat i on ofd em eanor — w as i m pl i cat ed by t he pr ocedu r e f ol l ow ed i n t hi s case. 14 n o s e ). 5 M o re o v e r, A p p e l l a n t w a sn o t p re v e n te d fro m c r o s s -e x a m i n i n g K .W ., a n d h e d i d q u e sti o n h e r ab o u t he r i n i ti a l d e n i a l s o f an yse x u a l co n d u c t w i th A ppel l antt o t he f i r stof f i cerw ho qu est i oned her , t he C PS of f i cer , ot herof f i cer s, herm ot her , he r gr and m ot her , and A ppe l l ant ’ s gi r l f r i end . K. W . de ni ed t hats he h a d t o ld A p p e lla n t ’s g ir lf r ie n d t h a tt h e r e h a d b e e n n o s e x . S h e a d m it t e d in it ia lly den yi ng a ny s exu alco nduc tt o t he ot her s. Nei t herdur i ng cr os s- exa m i nat i on no r o u tsi d e the j u ry’s p res e n c e d id A p p e l l a n t i n q u i re a s to w h yK .W . d e c i d e d to r et r actherdeni al s and t est i f y t hatspeci f i c sexu al acti vi t y occur r ed. O n r edi r ect exam i nat i on byt he S t at e, K . W . st at ed t hatshe had deni ed t hatanyt hi ng sexual hap pen ed bec aus e s he had notw ant ed anyt hi ng ba d t o ha ppe n t o Appel l ant and t hat she st i l l had f eel i ngs f or hi m , and s he adm i t t ed t hat hergr andm ot her had t hr ea t ene d t o m ak e h erl ea ve and t hats he hasha d t o l ea ve and go t o l i ve w i th h e r m o th e r.15

A n yin f e r e n c e t h a tm ig h tb e d r a w n f r o m K .W .’ sa p p a r e n tp r e g n a n c yis sp ec ul at i on. K. W . w asf ourt ee n ye ar s ol d a tt he ti m e oft r i al . Ther e i s no e v i d e n c e su g g e sti n g tha t K .W . h a d an ym o ti v e to fa l se l yac c u se A p p e l l a n t. A ppe l l antdoe s nots ugge stan y l ogi ca l l i nk bet w ee n he rpr egn anc y a nd a ny m ot i ve orb i as t hatw oul d r ef l ecton hercr edi bi l i t y orcause hert o f al sel y accuse h im . In a n ye v e n t , a n yp r o b a t iv e v a lu e c o u ld n o to u t w e ig h t h e d a n g e ro fu n f a ir pr ej udi ce f r om exhi bi t i ng herpost - of f ense pr egnan cy. Reveal i ng t o t he j ur y t hat ata poi ntaf t ert he al l ege d of f ens esoccur r ed sh e b ec am e p r egn antby so m eon e el seco ul d onl y hav e su bj ec t ed hert o r i di cul e, em bar r as sm ent , an d hum i l i at i on. S e eS tep h en s v. S tate , 9 7 8 S .W .2 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 5 (T e x . A p p .— A u sti n 1 9 9 8 , p e t. ref’d) ( h o l d i n g all o w i n g ev id e n c e o f pre g n a n c yo f co m p l a i n a n t w h e n rap e d to sh ow ot herpa sts exu alco nduc tw her e m ot i ve f or fab r i ca t i on ofac cus at i ons a ga i ns t de f e nd a nt w a s no n- e xi s t e nt w ou l d ha ve c on t r a ve ne d i nt e nt ofr ul e 412 a n d s u bj e c te d h e r to ri d i c u l e , e m b a rra s s m e n t, a n d h u m i l i a ti o n ). W e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on bypr eve nt i ng t he j ury f r om vi ew i ng K. W . ’ s pr egnan cy because A ppel l anthas notshow n t hather p reg n a n c yw a s re l e v a n t to m o ti v e o r b i a s a n d b e c a u se the ex c l u sion se rve d to a v o i d p reju d ic e to K .W . a n d c o n fu s i o n o f th e i s s u e s . See i d. ; see al

so Mc Glo thl

i nv. S tate , 260 S. W . 3d 124, 130–3 1 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2008, pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng excl usi on ofevi dence t hatchi l d com pl ai nant sexual l y abused16

hersam e- age cousi ns notdeni al o fri ght ofco nf r ontat i on w her e ther e w as ot her evi den ceofpr i ors exu alco nduc tan d e vi den ceha d sl i ghtpr oba t i ve val ue and p o s e d d a n g e r o f b e i n g o v e rw h e l m i n g l yu n fa i rl yp rej u d i c i a l ); L a desic v. S tate , N o. 02- 05- 00444

- CR, 2007 W L2963 755, a t*5 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h O c t . 11, 200 7, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t r i alcourt ’ s r ef us i ng c r os s- exa m i nat i on ofco m pl ai nan t abo ut n o t e s r e l a t e d t o s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r b o y s n o t d e n i al of c o n fr o n tati o n w h e n co u rtall o w e d o th e r ex a m i n a ti o n reg a rding co n d u c t w i th bo y s a n d a ny pr obati ve val ue f arout w ei ghed by dang erofunf ai rpr ej udi ce u n d e rR u l e 4 1 2 (b )(3 )); Herrera v. S tate , No. 08- 01- 00152

- CR, 2004W L 321 681 , * 5–6 ( Tex. A pp. — El Paso Feb . 20, 2004 , pe t . r ef ’ d) ( m em . op. , not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng no ab us e o fdi screti on a nd no de ni al of con f r ont at i on byex cl udi ng di ary no t esofot herposs i bl e se xua l i nvol vem ent s by vi ct i m w her e he rp os si bl e b i asan d m ot i ve t o c onc octs exu alas sa ul tch ar ge w er e devel oped by evi dence of desi r e nott o m ove t o new ci t y and ang erbased o n p h y s i c a l a b u s e o f m o th e r a n d v i c ti m b yd e fe n d a n t). W e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’s f i r stand second p oi nt s. I V . Legaland f act ualsuff i ci ency ofevi dence A ppel l antar gues i n hi s t hi r d and fo u rt h p oi nt s t hatt he evi dence w as le g a llya n d f a c t u a l l yi n s u f f ic ie n tt o p r o v e t h e s e x u a l a s s a u lt s , s p e c if ic a lly ar gui ng t hatK. W . ’ s t es t i m ony w as“ am bi guous ” and l ac ke d c r edi bi l i t y.17

A . S t andar ds ofr evi ew I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y oft he evi den ce t o su pporta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l the evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostfavor abl e to t he pr osecut i on i n or der t o det er m i ne w het her any r at i onal t r i er of f act coul d have f oun d th e essent i al e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Ja cks o n v. V ir ginia , 443 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 235 S. W . 3d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T hi s st andar d gi ves f ul l pl ay t o t he r esponsi bi l i t y of t he t r i er o f f a c t t o r esol ve confl i ct s i n t he t est i m ony, t o w ei g h t he evi dence, and t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e i n fe re n c e sfro m b a s i c fa c ts to u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 2 35 S. W . 3d at7 78. The t r i eroff ac ti s t he s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e . S eeT e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Brownv. S tate , 270 S. W . 3d 564, 568 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h u s , w h e n p e rfo rm i n g a l e g a l s u fficie n c yre v i e w , w e m a yn o t r e -ev a l u a te th e w e i g h t an d cre d i b i l i ty o f th e ev i d e n c e an d su b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U . S . 1 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n s t e a d , we “d et er m i ne w het hert he nec es sa ry i nf er enc esar e r ea so nab l e b as ed upo n t he com bi ned an d c um ul at i ve f or ce o fa l l t he evi den cew hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” Ho op er v. S tate , 214 S. W . 3d 9, 16–1 7 ( Tex.18

C r i m . A pp. 2007 ) . W e m us tpr es um e t ha tt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y con f l i ct i ng i nf er enc esi n f avo roft he pr os ec ut i on a nd de f ert o t hatr es ol ut i on. Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. W h e n rev i e w i n g th e f a c tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den ce i n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Nea l v. S ta te, 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W a tso nv. S tate , 204 S. W . 3d 404, 414 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 2006 ) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi dence supp ort i ng t he conv i ct i on, al t hou gh l egal l y suf f i ci ent , i s nevert hel ess s o w e a kt h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’ s d e t e r m in a t io n isc le a r lyw r o n g a n d m a n if e s t ly un j us to rw he t he rc on f l i c t i ng e vi de nc e s o gr e a t l y ou t w e i gh st heevi dence s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n ism a n if e s t ly u n j u s t. L a n c o nv. S tate , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s f a c tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f re a s o n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” L a n c o n, 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W a ts o n, 204 S . W . 3d at 41 4– 15 , 41 7. W e c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n i s c l e a r l y w r ong o r m ani f es t l y un j us ts i m pl y be ca us e w e w oul d ha ve dec i ded di f f er ent l y t han t he j ury orbe ca us e w e d i sa gr eew i t h t he j ury’ s r es ol ut i on ofa co nfl i cti n t he19

e v i d e n c e . Lancon, 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W a ts o n, 204 S. W . 3d at414– 15, 417. W e m a yn o t s i m p l ys u b s ti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th e fa c tfin d e r’s . Johnson v. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca i nv. S tate , 958 S. W . 2d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e ss the rec o rd c l e a rl yrev e a l s th a t a di f f er entr es ul ti s app r opr i at e, w e m us tde f ert o t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on oft he w ei ghtt o begi ven cont r adi ct ory t es t i m oni alevi den cebe ca us e r es ol ut i on oft he confl i ct“oft en t ur ns on an ev a l u a ti o n ofcr edi bi l i t y and dem eanor , and t hose j u rors w er e i n at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d at 8. Th us, unl ess w e concl ude t hati ti s necessary t o cor r ectm ani f est i nj ust i ce, w e m u stgi ve due defer ence t o t he f act f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i ons, “p art i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i ons con ce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t 9 . O u r d e fe re n c e i n th i sre g a rd s a fe g u a rd sth e d e fe n d a n t’s ri g h t to a tri a l b yj u ry . Lancon, 253 S . W . 3 d at 70 4. An opi ni on a ddr es si ng f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y m us ti ncl udea di sc us si on oft he m os ti m port antan d r el eva nt e v i d e n c e th a t s u p p o rtsth e a p p e l l a n t’sc o m p l a i n t o n a p p e a l . Si m s v. S tate , 99 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); se e L a ster v. S tate , 275 S. W . 3d 5 1 2 , 5 1 7

– 1 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). B. A ppl i cabl e l aw U nderTexas Pen al C ode sect i on 2 2. 02 1( a) , a per son com m i t s t he of f ense ofag gr ava t ed se xua l as sa ul ti fhei nt ent i ona l l y orkn ow i ngl y ( i ) ca us est he20

pen et r at i on oft he anu s ors exu alor gan ofa chi l d byan y m ea ns ; ( i i ) ca us est he penetr at i on ofthe m outh of a ch i l d by t he sexual or gan of t he act or ; ( i i i ) causes t he sexual o r gan ofa chi l d t o contacto rp enet r at e the m outh, anus, orsexual o rga n o f an o th e r pe rso n , i n c l u d i n g the ac to r; (i v ) c a u se s t h e a n u s o f a c h i l d to c o n ta c t th e m o u th , a n u s , o r s e x u a l o rg a n o f a n o th e r p e rs o n , i n c l u d i n g th e a c to r; or( v) ca us est he m out h ofa chi l d t o c ont ac tt he anu s ors exual o r gan of anotherper son, i ncl udi ng t he act or ; and i fthe vi ct i m i s yo ung ert han f ourt een yea r s ofag e. Tex. PenalC odeA nn. § § 22. 021 ( a) ( 1) ( B) , ( 2) ( B) ( V er non Supp . 2 0 0 8 ). C . A n a ly s is I tw asu ndi sp ut ed t hatK. W . w ast hi rt ee n ye ar s ol d a tt he t i m esoft he al l ege d of f ens es . The j ury he ar d e xt ens i ve evi den cef r om K. W . r ega r di ng f our speci f i c i nst ances w hen s he and A ppel l ant engag ed i n sexual i n tercour se, i ncl udi ng v agi nal , o r al , an d a nali nt er cou r se . The j ury a l so he ar d a boutt he i ni t i alf ondl i ng t hatoccur r ed w hen K . W . and A ppe l l antf i r sts t art ed t o s eeone ano t herasw el l asor als ex perf or m ed by b ot h i ndi vi dua l s. Beyon d t he des cr i pt i onsoft he se xua l be hav i or , K. W . w asal so abl e t o t es t i f y i n det ai l ab out t he l ocat i ons ofeach i nci dent ofsexu al i nt er cour se and f ond l i ng; she descr i bed t he m ar oon c ar , t he bl ac k t r uc k, th e m ot el , t he el em ent ary s cho ol , an d t he y e l l o w h o u se w i th th e c h a i n -l i n kfe n c e an d d o g s. T h e tr i a l co u rtad m i tted i n to21

evi den cepho t og r aph s t ak en by p ol i ceoft he m ar oon c aran d oft he yel l ow hou se and dogs, w hi ch confi r m ed K . W . ’ s descr i pt i ons. K. W . w asal so ab l e t o de sc r i be A ppe l l ant ’ s t att oosl oca t ed on t he b a c k s i d e o f b o th h i sa rm s , a n d th e j u ry re c e i v e d p h o to s o f th e ta tto o s . T h e j u ry hear d t est i m ony b y t he C A R E t eam m em berw ho h a d c o n d uct ed a sexual a s s a u l t e x a m i n a ti o n a n d h a d o b s e rv e d a tra n s e c ti o n o n K .W .’s h y m e n . T h e j u ry r ec ei ved ex hi bi t s sh ow i ng a not e a l l ege dl y l eftby A ppe l l antf orK. W . an d a cr um pl ed pho t o ofA ppel l antt hatK . W . had i n herpossessi on. The j u ry al so hear d t a pe d ph on e c a l l m e s s a ge sf r om App e l l a ntl e fto n K. W . ’ sv oi c e m a i l as w e l l a s th e re c o rd e d c o n v e rs a ti o n b e tw e e n th e m i n w h i c h A p p e l l a n t to l d K .W . t o hi de hi s pi ct ur e orshe w oul d not see hi m agai n f orsever al year s. C on si de r i ng K . W . ’ s hi gh l y d etai l ed t esti m on y, t he co ns i stent r esul t s oft he C A R E t eam exam , and t he cor r obo r at i ng ph ot ogr aphs a n d r ecor ded con ver sa t i ons , w e h ol d t hata r at i ona l j ury c oul d ha ve con cl ude d be yond a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t th a t A p p e l l a n t i n te n ti o n a l l yo r k n o w i n g l yp e n e tra te d K .W .’s fem a l e se x u a l o rga n w i th h i s p e n i s o r ca u se d K .W .’ s fe m a le s e x u a l o rga n to c o n t a c th is s e x u a l o r g a n ; c a u s e d K .W .’ sf e m a le s e x u a l o r g a n t o c o n t a c th is m o u t h , p e n e t r a t e d K .W .’ s a n u sw it h h isp e n iso rc a u s e d h e ra n u st o c o n t a c th is sexual or gan; caused herm outh t o con tac t hi s sexual or gan; and knew t hat K. W . w as younge rt han f ourt ee n ye ar s ofag e a tt he t i m e. Vi ew i ng t he22

evi dence i n t he l i ght m ost f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, w e hol d t he evi dence w a s l e g a l l y su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rtthe j u ry’s v e rdict. S eeJa ckson , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d a t7 7 8 . W e t h e r e f o r e o v e r r u le A p p e l l a n t’ s th i rd p o i n t. V ie w in g a ll t h e e v id e n c e in a n e u t r a l lig h t , w e c o n s id e rt h a tK .W . in it ia lly deni ed t o t he pol i ce, t he C PS i nvest i gat or , and hergr andm ot hert hatany sexual ac t i vi t y t ookpl ac e w i t h Appel l ant . W e c ons i derA ppe l l ant ’ s si st er ’ s t es t i m ony t hatK . W . had t ol d A ppel l ant ’ s gi r l f r i end she w as f or ced t o say t hatshe had i nt er cou r sew i t h Appel l anti n ordert o r em ai n a the rgr and m ot her ’ s hom e a nd t hat“i tneverhappen ed. ” W e al so consi dert hatK . W . adm i t t ed und ercr osse x a m i n a ti o n tha t he r t e sti m o n yreg a rding A p p e l l a n t’ s u se o f a v i b rato r t o pen et r at e hersexu alor gan w asnotpa rtofhe rs t at em ent s t o pol i cean d t o CPS orherout cr y t o herf am i l y. But K . W . ’ s cr edi bi l i t y and t he w ei ght ofher te s ti m o n yw e re m a tte rsfo r th e j u r yt o re s o l v e . V i e w e d i n a n e u tra l l i g h t, w e ca nnots ay t hatt he evi den cew ass o w ea k t hatt he ver di ctw ascl ea r l y w r ong and m ani f es t l y unj us t or t hat t he con f l i ct i ng evi den ce so gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghe d t he e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a tt h e ju ry ’s d e t e r m in a t io n w a sm a n if e s t ly u n j u st; t h u s , th e ev i d e n c e i f f a c tu a l l ysu ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rtthe j u ry’s v e rdict. See L anc on 2 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 4 ; W atson , 2 0 4S .W .3 d a t 4 1 7 . W e th e re fo re o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s fo u rt h p o i n t.23

V . C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l f o u r o f A p p e l l a n t’sp o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n ts . P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: G A RD N ER, LI V I N G STO N , an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a y 14, 2009