Th e fa c ts r e c ite d in thi s o pin ion

are take n fr om the te sti mony and e xhibi ts a dmi tte d at tr ia l. 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 393 -CR

Da nie l Jo se ph Whi tl e y , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 427 TH JUDI CIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-07 -30 1930 , HO NORAB LE MELI SSA YO UNG G OO DWI N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appellant Daniel J oseph W hitley g uilty of ag g ravated sexual assault, see Te x. Pe na l Co de Ann. § 2 2. 02 1 ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 9) , a

nd a sse sse d h is p un ish me nt a t si xty y e a rs ’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. I n three issues, Whit ley contends that the evidenc e is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to sustain the jury ’s verdic t of g uilt, and that the court err ed in its char g e to the jury . We will overrule these contentions and a ffirm the c onviction.
BACK GR OUND Whit le y and the vic tim , P. N. , me t f

or the fi rs t tim e a t a

g a s st a tio n w he re the vic tim
wa s fill ing he r ca

r wit h f ue l. After

approa ching P.N. and talking with her for approximately

fiftee n 1

m i n u t e s , W h i t l e y an d P
. N
. e x c h an g e d p h o n e n u mb e r s an d t h e t w o p art e d

w ays . L a t e r

t h a ts a m e d a y,2

a ft e r e xch ang ingse ve ra l text mes sa g e s w ithhe r, Whit le y inv ite d P. N. to h is a

pa rtme nt t hat ni g ht t o “hangout.” Afte r explaining to him that she had to bring her f our-month-old son with her, P.N. ag ree d and later s h o we d up at Whitl ey ’s apa rtment, wher e they

talked and w atche d television for
se ve ra l ho ur s unti l P. N. le ft a t a pp ro xima te ly

11 :30 p. m. Over the nex t couple of day s, Whit ley and P .N. ex chang ed more text messag es and ph on e c a lls . E ve ntu a lly , Wh itl e y inv ite d P. N. ov e r to his a

pa rtme nt a g a in. Simi lar t o th e fi rs t vi sit , Whit ley and P.N. talked, wa

tched tele vision, and play ed with P.N.’s son , whom she had br oug ht
a g a in. P.N
. te sti fi e d th a t Whi tle y fl ir te d w ithhe r d

ur ingthe vis it a

nd su g g e ste d th a t th e y

e ng a g e in sexual activity , but she thoug ht Whi tley was joking when he said these t h i n gs and so she did not respond dire ctly . P.N. also testified that she and Whit ley did not eng ag e in any sexual activity during this or the previous visit. P.N. left Whi tley ’s apa rtment around midnig ht, after having been the re f or
a pp ro xima te ly

fi ve ho ur s. The pa rties continued c ommunicating, e ither via text messag es or phone calls, over the ne xt co up le of

da y s, bu t di d n ot m e e t a g a in unt il o ne da y wh e n Wh itl e y

a sk e d P. N. to c ome to his apartment a fter she g ot off wor k. P.N. testified that, about an hour into this visit, she and Whitley beg an ar g uing be cause Whit ley was tea sing P.N. a

bout a traumatic sexual experience P.N. had
e nd ur e d a s a c hil d. P.N
. te sti fi e d that w he n s he tr ie d to le a ve Whit le y ’s a pa rtme nt, Whit le y

be c a me ang ry , g rabbe d her, r ipped her pocket, and kicked her down the s tairs. P.N. eventua lly left and called the po lic e imm e diate ly , b ut n o c ha rg e s w e re fi le d a g a ins t Whi tle y a s a re su lt o f t

his inc ide nt. W h i t l ey re peate dly

called a nd sent text messag es to P.N. after this incident apol o g iz in g f

o r h is a c ti o n s . P. N
. te s ti f ie d th a t a f

te r a f e w d ay s o f Wh it le y ’ s me s s a g e s and phone3

calls, P.N. r esumed contac t w ith Whitley and took he r son with he r for another visit to W h i t l ey ’s apar tment. Sim ilar to the pre vious evening s, Whi t l ey an d P
. N. t alked a nd watche d television for
sever al hours. Dur ing this visit, W hitley told P.N. that he loved her and repe atedly sug g ested they eng ag e in s exual intercour se. P.N. testified t hat s he did not respond to Whitley ’s dec laration of love and that she a

nd Whit ley

did not eng ag e in any sexual a ctivity despite his r equests. Eventually , P.N.
sa id that sh e needed

to l e a ve , b ut Wh itl e y

su g g e ste d th a t P. N. and

he r s on sp e nd the nig ht at hi s apar tment since it wa s alre ady so late. P.N. ag ree d and, ac cordingto P.N.’s testimony , the three of them we nt to sleep in Whi t l ey ’s b ed ar ound 1:00 a.m., with P.N’s baby sleeping betwee n the tw o a du lts
. A fe w hours later , in the ear ly morning , P.N. wok e whe n she hea rd Whitl ey

g et up from the be d and lea

ve the room to use the re stroom. P.N. testified that when Whitley came out of the re stroom, he walke d over to the be d , o p en ed a night-stand dra wer , and re moved what P.N. identified as a

“g un.” P.N. stated that Whitley pointed the g un at her , hold ing it “[l]i ke a police office r would,” a

nd told her to put he r son on the floor and take her c lothes off. P.N. re sisted and pleade d with Whi tley

to stop. W hitley

then g rabbe d her a

nd started c hoking he r with one ha nd, and thr e a te ne d to kil l he r i f s he did no t r e mov e he r c lot

hin g . P. N. te sti fi e d th a t sh e st ruggled wi th Whit ley , but that he eventually forc ed her onto the bed a nd sexually

assaulted he r while throttling her ne ck. After the sexual assault, W hitley went int o the restroom and P .N. gra bbed her things a

nd her son a nd tried to leave the apa

rtment. Whit ley at first bl ocked the door, but allowed P.N. to leave afte r she pr omised not to tell any one that Whitley had sexually

assaulted he r. P.N. immediately

called a friend—a

n ex-boy friend a

nd the father of he r child—and, while “sc rea

ming a nd cry ing,” told him t hat Whitl ey had sexually

assaulted he r. P.N.’s ex-boy friend4

testified that he told her

to d ri v e t o a hospital, wher e he later met he r. At the hospital, a Sexual Assault Nu rs e Examiner (“ SANE nurse” ) examined P.N. and took samples fr om P.N.’s body as evidenc e of the sexual assault. The SANE nurse testified t hat when she examined P.N. the morning of the assault, P.N. c omplained of a sor e throat, had two scra tches on he r bac k, and had a thin red lin e in h e r v a g ina l c a vit

y , wh ic h the nurs e te sti fi e d wa s, in he r e xpe ri e nc e , c on sis te nt w ithfo rc ibl e
se xua l a ssa

ult
. The Austin Police Depa rtment’s (“ APD”) For en s i c U n i tt es t edt h e s am p l es taken f rom P.N. at the hospital and deter mined that semen wa s prese nt in the samples. At trial, APD’s for ensics examiner test i fi ed that Whitley could not be excluded as a contributor of the semen
sampl e c oll e c te d f

ro m P. N. , a

nd the pr ob a

bil ity that the sampl e c a me fr om an un re la te d b la c k ma le was 1 in 21.67 million.

P.N . a lso me t w ithan A PD of fi c e r a t the ho sp ita l the mor nin g of the se xua l a ssa

ult and, thre e day s later, met with D etec tive Richard J enning s of APD’s Sex Crimes Division. De tective J enning s testified that he took P.N.’ s statement at that time a nd prepa red an aff idavit f or a wa rra nt for Whitley ’s ar

rest, which subse quently

issued. Nine day s after

the sexual assault occur

red a nd afte r Whit le y ha d b e e n a

rr e ste d, De te c tiv e Jenn ing s ex ecuted a se arc h w arr ant at Whi tle y ’s a pa rtme nt. Detec tive J enning s testified that when he arr ived at W hitley ’s apa rtment to execute the sea rch
wa rr ant, Whit le y ’s mot

he r a nd ano the r w oma

n we re the re “ c le anin g ou t the a pa rtme nt. ” Th e APD did no t lo c a te a

g un a t Whi tle y ’s a

pa rtme nt. The jury convicted Whitley

of ag g ravated sexual assault and assessed his punishment
a t si xty y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt a

nd a $1 0, 00 0 f

ine . Wh itl e y

a pp e a ls.5 SUF F ICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE I n his first two points of error , Whit ley arg ues that the e vi dence is leg ally and fac tually insufficient to support the c onviction for agg ravated s exual assault. Specifica lly , Whit ley
asser ts that the State did not car ry its burden to prove that he used or e x hibited a dea dly wea pon—a firea rm—during the commission of the sexual assault. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.021.
Stan dard of Revie w

I n re vie wi ng the le g a l su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e re vie w a ll o f t he e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdict. Cla y ton v . S tat e , 235 S.W .3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The que stion presented is whe ther a rational t ri er o f fact could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); Clayton , 2 3 5 S
. W
. 3 d

a t7 7 8
. W e a s s u m e t h a tt h e t r i e r o f f a c tr e s o l v e d

c o n f l i c t s i nt h e t e s t i m o n y,
we ig he d th e e vid e nc e , a nd dr e w r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in

a manne r t

hat su pp or ts the ve rd ic t. Clayton , 235 S.W .3d at 7 7 8
. I n co n ducting this review, we do not ree valuate the weig ht and
cre dibilit y of the evidenc e, but a ct only to e nsure that the jury rea ched a rational de cision. Muniz v. Sta te , 851 S.W .2d 238, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

I n a fa c tua l- su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we c on sid e r a ll the e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l lig ht, wh ile g iving due defe renc e to the jury ’s deter mination. Se e Sim s v . S

tat e , 99 S.W.3 d 6 00 , 6 04 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Va sq ue

z v . S tat e , 67 S.W.3 d 229 , 2 36 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). Ev ide nc e is f a c tua lly insufficient whe n it is so weak that t he verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or when the ver dict is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of th e ev i d en ce. W

ats on v . S

tat e ,Whit ley does not c halleng e the jury ’s finding s that he intentionally or knowing ly

cause d 2 the pe ne tr a tio n o f P .N .’ s se xua l or g an b y Whit le y ’s se xua l or g an w ith ou t P. N. ’s c on se nt. 6 20 4 S. W.3 d 4 04 , 4 14 -1 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 2 3 S .W .3d 1 , 1 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2000). The jury , as the trier of fa ct, “is the sole judg e of the cre dibilit y of the witnesse s and of the stre ng th of the evide nce.” Fu e ntes v . S tat e , 991 S.W .2d 267, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The jury may choose to b el i ev e o r d i sbelieve a ny portion of the testimony
. Sh ar p v . S tat e , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The jury may also draw rea sonable infere nces f rom basic fa cts to ultim ate f

acts. Cle wis v . S

tat e , 922 S.W .2d 126, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). W hen fac ed with conf

licting e v i d en ce , we pr esume the trie r of f act r esolved c onflicts in favor of the preva iling par

ty
. Tur ro v . S tat e , 8 6 7 S
. W
. 2 d

4 3 , 4 7 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ). W e m ay n o tre we i gh the evidenc e and substitute our judg ment for that of t h e jury
. W

atson , 2 04 S.W. 3d

a t 41 4; King

v . S tat e , 29 S.W .3d 556, 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Discussion To prove the offe nse of ag g ravated s exual assault as set forth in the indictment and jury char g e, the State wa s require d to e stablish that Whit ley intentionally or knowing ly cause d the penetr ation of P.N.’s sexual org an by Whit ley ’s sexual org an, without P
. N.’s consent, and that Whit ley used or e x hibited a dea dly wea pon—a fire ar

m— in the course of

the same c riminal episode. 2 See Tex. Pe n a l Co d e A n n . § 2 2
. 0 2 1 ( a )
. A f ir e ar m is a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , T e x. Pe n a l Co d e Ann. § 1.07(a) (17) ( West Supp. 2009), and is de fined as “any device desig ned, made, or ada pted to expel7

a proje ctile throug h a bar

rel by using the ener g y g ener ated by an explos ion or burning substance or any device rea dily

conver tible to that use,” id. at § 46.01(3). At trial, P.N. testified that Whit ley sexually assaulted her and used a “g un” duringthe
c omm iss ion

of the se xua l a ssa

ult . Re g ard ingWhit le y ’s us e of a “ g un ” duri ngthe se xua l a ssa ult , P.N . te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s:
A: [W hitley ] reache d into the drawe r, and I turned a ro u n d and that’s whe n he pu lle d it ou t. Q: Now, what broug ht y our attention to the dra wer ? A: The noise. Q: Of

t h e d ra we r o p en i n g? A: Ye s. Q: What di d h e pu ll o ut? A: His g un. Q: How do y ou know it was a gun? A: B e c a

us e of the wa y he he ld i t. Q: Ho w d id h e ho ld i t? A: L ike a police office r would. Q : S h o w t h e m e mb e r s o f t h e j u r y. A: He jus t po int e d it

a t me lik e that.

. . . . Q : Wh e r e w a s h e p o in ti n g it a t yo u , “ h e ” b e in g [Wh it le y ]? A: My

c he st.8

Q: What was y our re action? A: My

hear t sank, just dropped in my stomach. Q: What did y ou think? A: Ihonestly

thought he was g oing to kill me. Q: Were y ou scar ed? A: (N o d d i n g) Q: I s that a “y es”? A. Ye s.

. . . . Q : W h a te l s e d o e s [ W h i t l e y] s ay? A: Ca lli ngme the same c us s wo rd s, sa y ing the same thi ng , te lli ng me to t a ke my clothes off

. And he sa id, bitch, I ’m not playing w ith you. I f y ou don’t take y our pants off

, I ’m g oing to kill y ou. Q: Di d y ou

be lie ve him ? A: At that point, I did.

. . . . Q: Di d y ou

pu shhim ? A: No t w he n s ome bo dy is hol din g so me thi ng lik e that at me , I wa sn ’t g oin g to pu shhim
.

. . . . Q: What was he doing with the g un? A: I t was just lay ing on the bed now, be cause he’s in contr ol now beca use he’ s on top of me and he ’s pre ssing down on my throat and I

can’ t breathe. Q: Were y ou looking at this gun?9

A: Iwas looking any wher e just try ing to se e, make sure my son wasn’t wa

king up . Just a ll I c ou ld t hink a bo ut w a s h im. Q: I s that why

y ou didn’t g rab the g un? A: No . I

wa sn ’t g oin g to d o th a t. Q : W h y? A: Be cause Ifelt l ike i f I did, he could have just snapped my neck, he could have killed me.

. . . . Q: What did he do when he g ot off y ou? A: Wen t in

the bathr oo m and

wi pe d h ims e lf

of f a nd c a me ba c k o ut, pu t hi s box ers ba ck on, and I p u t my [pants] back on. I

didn’t put my

underw ear back on. Q: Where’s the g un? A: I t must have disappea red somew here . Idon’t know whe re it we nt to then. Q: Wer e y ou

loo kin g fo r i t? A: Iwasn’t looking for it, no. Q: What were y ou looking f or? A: Iwa s r e a dy

to g o. My

c e ll phone , my

ke y s, and

Ig ra bb e d my so n a nd his bag , and I was re ady

to go.
Whit ley asser ts that this t estimony , which is the S tate’s only evidenc e that W hitley used or e x hibited
a fi re arm , wa s not le g a lly or fa c tua lly su ff ic ie nt be c a

us e , othe r tha

n use of the wo rd

“ g un ,” P.N . d id not de scribe the g un—i.e., siz e, color, caliber , make, model, revolve r, or automatic—did not testify that she had pr ior knowledg e about f irea rms or had ever seen or held one up close , and did not testify the “gun” wa s a devic e manife stly desig ned to fire a proje ctile of a ny kind. We disagr ee.10 A complainant’ s uncorr oborate d testimony alone is suf

ficient to support a conviction for a g g ravated sexual assault under se ction 22.021. See Te x. Cod e Cr im
. P roc. art . 3 8. 07 (We st 20 07 ); Ga rc ia v . S

tat e , 563 S.W .2d 92 5 , 9 2 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Here , P.N. testified that Whit ley pulled a “g

un” out of the draw er and, holding it like a police office r would, aimed it at he r chest a nd threatened to kill her. This testimony , coupled with her testimony

that she thoug ht Whi tley was g oing to kill her w hen he pointed the “g un” at her chest, sug g ests that the object in Whitley ’s hand wa s a devic e ca

pable of firinga proje ctile at her
. The jury may drawrea sonable infe renc es and make rea sonable deductions fr om the evidenc e as pr esente d to it withi n the context of the crime. A bsen t an y specific indication to the contra ry at trial, the jury should be able to make the rea sonable infere nce f rom P.N.’s testimony

that Whit ley used a “ g un” in the commission of a cri m e an d t h at the “gun” in question was a firea rm as def ined in the Penal Code. Se e Car te r v . S tat e , 9 46 S.W. 2d

50 7, 51 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Di s t
. ] 1 9 9 7 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g W r i g h t v . S tat e , 5 9 1 S.W .2d 458, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (testimony

using any of the te rm s “ ‘gun ,’ ‘p ist ol, ’ o r ‘ re vo lve r, ’ i s su ff ic ie nt t o a uth or ize the jur

y to find that a de adly

wea pon was used” )). I n s up po rt

of his c on te nti on

that th e e vid e nc e is f

a c tual ly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingthat he us e d o r e xhibi te d a fi re arm duri ng the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e , Whit le y a lso po int s to P.N.’s testimony

about how Whitley

used his hands duringthe attac k: Q: Di d y ou

do any thi ngph y sic a l to him ? A: I was grabb inghis hands tr y ingto p ull his hands aw a y f r o m my thr o a t and telling him to stop.11

(italics adde d). Whitl ey

argues that this testim ony is inconsistent with t he State’s c ontention that he used or e x hibited a fire arm be cause it sugg ests t h at W h itley had nothing in his hands during the sexual assault—i.e., no firea rm. But a revie w of P.N.’s testimony shows that Whit ley

had one ha

nd around P.N.’s throa

t at first and then later wa s using both hands to c hoke her . When asked a bout wher e the gun was a fter she testified that he wa s using two ha nds to c hoke her, P.N. te stified that the g un was “ just lay ing on the bed” a fter Whitley had g ained control over her. This testimony is not inconsistent. I t is reasona ble for the jury

to have c oncluded that Whitley choked P.N. with one ha

nd while he he ld the g un, place d the g un on the bed onc e he h ad co ntrol over P.N. and did not nee d the g un, and then use d both hands to choke her during the rema inder of the assault. Even if P.N.’s testimony was contra dictory , a conflict in the evidenc e does not justify a new trial simply

beca use an appellate court mig ht disag ree with the jury ’s re solution of the conflict. W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417. Whit le y argue s th a t th e te sti mony is a lso inc on sis te nt b e c a

us e P.N . d oe s n ot e xpla in what happened to the f

irea rm afte r the a ssault and ca n only testify that the fire arm “ disappea red
so me wh e re .” B ut P.N . ne ve r te sti fi e d tha t she loo ke d for the g un and c ou ld n ot f

ind it. I ns te a d, in
re sp on se to a que sti on a

bo ut the fi re arm ’s loc a tio n af te r the se xua l ass a

ult , P.N. state d th a t sh e did not know w h e r e it w a s , b u t th a t s h e w a s n o t lo o k in g f o r it b e c a u s e s h e w a s b u s y g a th e r in g up her child and possessions and try ing to lea

ve. Ag ain, t h i s testimony is not inconsist ent with the contention that Whitl ey used a g un during the assault. I t w as rea sonable for the jury to conclude that P.N. did not see the firea

rm afte r the sexual a ssault be cause she was not looking for the f irea rm or beca use she was focuse d on flee ing the scene of the sexual a ssault. Fur ther, in lig ht of

De t ective J enning s’s testimony

that he executed the sear ch war rant on Whit ley ’s apar

tment nine day s after

the sexual assa u l t o ccur

red a nd found two women “ clea ning out [Whi tley ’s] apartment,” the juryThe State c ontends that Whit ley ’s counse l did not properly object to the phra ses. Fr om our 3 re vie w o f t

he re c or d, ho we ve r, we are sat is fi e d th a t th e ob je c tio ns we re tim e ly

and su ff ic ie ntl y specific
. 12 could have rea sonably

conclude d that the g un was re moved from the apartment after the sexual assault took place
.

Analy zing the evide nce in the lig ht most favor able to the jury ’s ver dict, we be lieve
a rational trier of f

act c ould have de termined that the State proved bey ond a reasonable doubt that Whit le y us e d o r e xhibi te d a

fi re arm duri ngthe se xua l a ssa

ult . T hus, the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly
su ff ic ie nt. We s imi larl y

ho ld t hat, v ie wi ng the e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l lig ht and takin g c are to a vo id
rew eig hing the evidenc e or substituting our judg ment for that of the jury ’s, the jury ’s af

fi rmative finding that Whit ley exhibi ted a firea rm during the commi ssion of the offe nse is not contrar y to the g re a t w e ig ht a

nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the a va ilab le evide nc e . T he e vid e nc e is the re fo re fa c tua lly sufficie nt to support W hitley ’s conviction for ag g ravated sexual assault. We overrule Whit ley ’s first and se cond points of er ror.
CH AR G E ERRO R I n his final poi nt of error, W hitley contends that the t rial cour t’s char g e to the jury

was improper. Spec ifically , Whit ley asser ts that the trial court err ed by including in the jur

y char g e, over his objection, tw o phrase s that were not supported by the evidenc e. Whit ley

contends that the 3 inc lus ion of tho se tw o p hr a se s in

the jur y c ha rg e ha rm e d h im. The purpose of the jury

char g e is to inform the jury of the applicable law and guide them in its application to the case. Hu tc h v . S ta te , 922 S.W .2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jury char g e must allow the jury to deter mine the defendant’s guilt in light of the evidenc e and13

the law. Id. Absent evidenc e to the contra ry , we presume the jury followed the law provided by the char g e. Id. I n revie wing a jury char g e, we must fir st de termine whe ther e rror exis ts. Ngo v . S

tat e , 175 S.W .3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I f er ror is found, the standar d for r ever sal depe nds
on whether a ti mely objection was made in the t rial court. Al ma nz a v . S

tat e , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). I f no prope r objec tion was made at trial, reve rsal is only proper in the prese nce of

an eg reg ious harm. Id. I f the e rror was the subjec t of a timely objection, as it was he re,
reve rsal is requir ed upon a show ing of “some ha rm.” Id
. W h i t l ey ’s fi rs tal l ege d

ch ar ge e rr o r i n v o l v es t h e s er i o u s - b o d i l y -i n j u ry l an gu age inc lud e d in

the c ha rg e ’s a bs tr a c t de fi nit ion

of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult : A per son com m i t s the offe nse of Ag g ravated Sexual Assault if the person intentionally or knowing ly cause s the penetr ation of the fema le sex org an or anothe r person by any means, without that person’ s consent; and (1) causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause the death of P.N. or another person in the course of the same c riminal episode ; (I talics adde d.) Althoug h this definition is taken dire ctly from the Penal Code, Whitley ’s counse l objected to the inc lusion of th e italicized langua g e on the g round that there was no e vidence prese nted at trial that Whit ley cause d serious bodi ly injury or attempted to cause the death of P.N.
or ano the r pe rs on in the c ours e of the c omm iss ion of the c ri me . O ur re vie w o f t

he re c or d c on fi rm s that the State prese nted no evidenc e supporting this languag e, nor does the State contend other wise. Ne ve rt he le ss, the tr ia l c ourt ov e rr ule d Whit le y ’s ob

je c tio n and inc lud e d the ph ra se . T he tr ia l c ourt , howeve r, did not include the objectionable phrase i n the application section of the cha rg e; instead, the application section of the cha rg e re quires the jury to assess g uilt based solely on fac tors prese nted14

in evidence
. An abstrac t instruc tion on an extraneous eleme nt of ag g ravated sexual assault, without specific appli cation to the fa cts of the c ase, doe s not authorize the jury to impose criminal responsibility

on the basis of that e lement. Se e Ma uld in v . S tat e , 6 28 S.W. 2d 79 3, 79 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p . 1 9 8 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at ab s t ra ct ch ar ge o n l aw o f p ar t i es wa s n o terro r b ec au s e t ri al co u rt ’s ch ar ge specific ally

require d jury

to f ind guilt base d solely on defe ndant’s own actions). Acc ording ly , it was not error for the tr ial court to over rule Whitley ’s objection. I n contra st, the second phr ase to whic h Whit ley objected w as included in the
a pp lic a tio n s e c tio n o f t

he c ha rg e :
Now bea ring in mind the foreg oing instruc tions, if y ou beli ev e from the e vid e nc e be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t tha t the de fe nd ant, [Whitl e y ], on or a bo ut t he 7th day o f August, 2007, in the County of Tra vis, and State of Te x as, as a lleg ed in the indictment, did then and there intentionally or knowing ly cause the pene tration of the sexual organ of [ P.N.] and the sa id [ Whit ley ] di d then and ther e by acts or w ords threate n to c a

u s e , o r p la c e , [P
. N
. ] in f e ar th a t s e r io u s b o d il y in ju r y w o u ld be imminently

inflicted on [P.N.]
. an d s aid ac ts or words occ urre d in the prese nce of [P .N.], that a deadly

wea pon, to wit: a f

i rearm, was use d or exhibit ed duringthe commission of the afor esaid off ense, a nd that the said [W hitley ] used or exhi bited the said dea dly

wea pon or was a p ar ty

to t he afo re sa id of fen se an d k

ne w th at a deadly weapon would be used or e xhibited , y ou will find the defe ndant g uilty of the offe nse of Ag g ravated Sex ual Assault and so say by y our ver dict, but if y ou do not so believe, or if y ou have a rea sonable doubt there of, y ou will acquit the def endant and say by y our ver dict “Not Guilty .” (Ita lic s a dd e d. ) Wh itl e y ’s c ouns e l ob je c te d to t he itali c ize d la ngua g e in t

he a pp lic a tio n b e c a

us e “ther e wa s no alleg ation of [W hitley ] being a party .” We take this as a

n objection that there was no evidenc e that Whitley

was a party to the offe nse—as oppose d to the principal actor . Our re view of the re cord c onfirms that the State pre sented no e vidence that Whit ley was a par ty to the offe nse, nor do e s the State ’s br ie f su g g e st oth e rw ise
. Thus , it wa s e rr or fo r the tr ia l c ourt to i nc lud e the ph ra se15

in the char g e. Se e Lad

d v . S tat e , 3 S.W .3d 547, 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ; M au dli n , 628 S.W .2d at 796. That err or was harmless, howeve r, beca use the evidenc e clea

rly supports Whi tley ’s g uilt as a princ ipal actor
. See Ladd , 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 5 6 4 -6 5 (c i t i n g Blac k

v . S tat e , 7 2 3 S. W. 2 d

6 7 4 , 6 7 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1986) (“Wher e the evidenc e clearly supports a def endant’ s g uilt as a principal a ctor, a ny
err or of the tr ial court in cha rg ing on the law of parties i s harmless.” )). In other wor ds, beca use there
was no e vidence tending to show Whi tley ’s g uilt as a party , the jury did not re l y u p o n t he par ties instruction in arriving at its verdict, but rather ba sed the v er d i ct o n the evidenc e tendingto show Whit ley ’s guilt as a principal a ctor. We overrule Whit ley ’s third point of err or.
CO NC LU SION B e c a us e we fi nd

no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

14, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh