C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

STEPHEN OROZ CO, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 00 70 -C R

Appea l from the 210th District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006ODO4478)

O P I N I O N Stephen Orozco a

ppeals his conviction for

three counts of indec ency with a child. The jury assessed punishment at 12 y ear s’ imprisonment for the indec ency count involving se x ual contac t and 5 y ear s’ imprisonment for ea ch indec ency count involving e x posure. The sentenc es
are to b e se rv e d c on c ur

re ntl y . App e lla

nt r a ise s f our i ssu e s f

or our r e vie w. We a ff

ir m. The c omplaining witness in this case , A.H., wa s seven- y ear s-old at the time he a lleg ed Appellant abuse d him. Accor ding to the c hild’s testimony , on Marc h 16, 2006, Appellant wa s spendingtime with his m other a nd sister in the family ’s home. When A.H.’ s mother fe ll asleep on the couc h, Appellant touche d the boy ’s g enitals. Appellant then told A.H. to g o to his room. He ins tr uc te d A .H . to un dr e ss a

nd lie do wn , at w hic h p oint A .H . te sti fi e d th at App e lla nt k ne lt do wn and be g an p e rf

or min gor a l se x on h im. Ap pe lla nt t he n to ld A .H . to g o to the bathr oo m, wh e re Ap pe lla

nt m a de the c hil d to uc h h is o wn g e nit a ls. F ina lly , App e lla nt i ns tr uc te d A .H . to kn e e l on the toi le t, whe re Ap pe lla nt r ub be d lo tio n o n A .H .’ s b a c ks ide and ins e rt e d h is f

ing e rs in-2-

the c hil d’ s r e c tum . Whil e A.H. w as still kneeling on the toilet, his st epfather a rrived home and found Appellant in the bathr oom with the child. The child’s stepf ather testified that Appellant ha d a bottle of lotion in hi s hand whe n he opene d the bathroom door. H e also notice d that Appellant’s pants wer e undone a

nd that he had a

n ere ction. A.H.’s mother pushed the bathroom door open when she hear d Appellant y elling de nials at A.H.’s stepf ather . She also testified that Appe llant’s pants wer e unbuttoned, and that Appellant had a n ere ction. She pushed her way into the bathroom, knocke d Appellant into the bathtub and r emoved A.H . from the r oom. As she ca rried A.H. aw ay , she noticed that he had lotion on his bottom . She immediately called 9- 1-1. As soon as A.H.’ s mother ca rried him aw ay

from the bathroom, both parents he ard
cra shing a

nd fallingnoises in the bathroom. Appe llant broke through the bathroom window a nd be g an r unnin gfr om t

he ho us e . Afe w m inute s late r, an E l Pa so Pol ic e De pa rtme nt m oto rc y c le patrol off icer spotted an individual matchingAppellant’s de scription runningawa y from the house seve ral blocks a

way . The off

icer told Appellant to stop and arr ested him for e vading
arr e st. Appellant wa s indicted on September 27, 2006, f or four counts of indenc ey

with a child, and two counts of a g g ravated sexual assault of a c hild. The jury convicted A

ppellant of one count of indec ency

with a child by

contac t (Count V in the indictment), and two counts of indece ncy with a child by

exposure (Counts Iand I Iin the indictment). In I ssues One, Tw o, and Thre e , App e lla

nt a rgue s th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his convictions. In I ssue Four , Appellant conte nds the trial cour t erre d by admitting A.H.’ s testimony beca use the c hild was not competent. We will addre ss I ssue Four first.-3-

In I ssue Four , Appellant conte nds the trial cour t erre d by allowingA.H to testify

befor e the jury beca use the re cord a s a whole f ailed to establish the child’s c ompetency . To prese rve a complaint for a

ppellate r eview, the rec ord must demonstrate that the c omplaining pa rty prese nted the issue to the trial cour

t via a timely

reque st, objection, or motion. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 33.1. The objec tion mustbe made with sufficient spec ificity to inform the trial cour

t of the complaint. Se e id . Rule 33.1 ensure s that the trial cour t had the opportunity

to corre ct its own err ors bef ore a party seeks a ppellate r eview. Se e Vi da urri v . S tate , 49 S.W .3d 880, 886 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). An ob je c tio n s atis fi e s th e sp e c if ic ity re qu ir e me nt b y

inf or min gthe tr ia l ju dg e wh at th e pa rt y wants and why

the par ty believes he is entitled to it
. Se e Lan k sto n v . S tate , 827 S.W .2d 907, 909 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ). F ur the rm or e , th e ob

je c tio n mu st b e ma de at a tim e wh e n th e tr ia l c ourt is in a prope r position to correc t the err or. Se e id
. Be fore A.H. beg an his testimony , the trial cour t held a short hea

ring , outside the jury ’s prese nce, to de termine the c hild’s competenc y . The trial judg e aske d A.H. a numbe r of que stions reg ardingthe child’s ability to tell the differ ence betwee n the truth and a lie, and about the c hild’s knowledg e and e x pectations about how the trial would proc eed. A t the end of the interview, the tr ia l c ourt ru le d th at A .H . w a s c omp e te nt t o te sti fy . T he re is n o r e c or d th at App e lla nt o bje c te d to the tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g , o r t o A .H .’ s te sti mony . T he re fo re , App e lla nt d id n ot p re se rv e his complaint for a

ppellate r eview. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 33 .1 ; Ma rti ne z v . S tate , 98 S.W .3d 189, 193 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Acc ording ly , I ssue Four is overrule d. I ssu e s O ne thr ou g h T hr e e c ha lle ng e the le g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e in support of Appe llant’s convictions. In a leg al suffic iency revie w, we must consider all of the evidenc e in a lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, and deter mine whether

a re asonable minded-4-

juror could have found the essential ele ments were proven be y ond a re asonable doubt. Jack son
v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 18 -1 9, 99 S.Ct . 2 78 1, 27 88 -8 9, 61 L .E d. 2d 56 0 ( 19 79 ); Hooper v

. Sta te , 2 14 S.W. 3d

9, 13 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ). We m us t g ive de fe re nc e to “ ‘t

he re sp on sib ili ty of the trier

of fa ct to fairly

resolve c onflicts in testimony , to weig h the evidenc e, and to dr aw
rea sonable infe renc es fr om basic fa cts to ultim ate f acts.’” Hooper , 214 S.W .3d at 13. In a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, we c onsider all the e vidence in a neutra l light. Roberts v. Sta te , 220 S.W .3d 521, 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Evidence is factua lly insufficient if: (1) the
e vid e nc e su

pp or tin gthe ve rd ic t is so we ak th at th e ve rd ic t se e ms c le arl y wr on gand

manif e stl y unjust; or (2) the evide nce suppor ting the ve rdict is outweig hed by the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of c ontrary evidenc e, re nderingthe ver dict clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Id . We cannot re verse a convic tion under the “ clea rly wrong ” or “ manifestly

unjust” standards simply beca use, base d on the quantum of e vidence admitted, we would have voted to ac quit. W ats on v . S tate , 204 S.W .3d 404, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). Nor ca n we de clar e that a c onflict in t he e vid e nc e jus tif

ie s a ne w tri a l be c a

us e we dis a g re e wi th t

he jur y ’s re so lut ion

of the c on fl ic t. Id . Ane w tri a l w ill on ly

be g ra nte d whe n th e re vie wi ngc ourt de te rm ine s, on

an o bje c tiv e ba sis , that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the jury ’s ver dict. Id
. In ad d i t i o n , o ur r ev i ew s h o u l d n o ts u b s t an t i al l y

i n tru d e up o nth e f

ac tfi n d er ’s ro l e a s th e s o l e j u d ge of the we ight a

nd cre dibilit y

g iven to witness testimony
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 9 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se e als o M ar sh all v . S tate , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (fa ctual suff

iciency revie w still requires “due defe renc e” be g iven to the jury ’s deter minations). Appellant wa s convicted f or indec ency

with a child. SeeT EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 21.11(a) (Ve rnon 2003). A pe rson commits an offe nse under Section 21.11(a) if:-5-

[W ]i th a child young er tha n 17 y ear s and not the per son’s spouse, whe ther the child is of the same or

opposite sex, t he per son (1 ) e ng a g e s in

se xua l c on ta c t w iththe c hil d o r c a us e s th e c hil d to e ng a g e in sexual contact; or (2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of a

ny person: (A ) e xpos e s th e pe rs on ’s anu s o r a ny pa rt of the pe rs on ’s g e nit a ls, knowingthe child is prese nt; or (B ) cause s the child to expose the child’s anus or a ny part of the child’s g e nit a ls. T EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 21.11(a)
. Th e pe na l c od e de fi ne s “ se xua l c on ta c t” in S e c tio n 2 1. 11 a s f oll ow s: (c) In this section, “sexual contact” means the f ollowing a cts, if committed with the intent to arouse or g ratify the sexual desire of a

ny person: (1) any

touchingby

a per son, including touc hing thr oug h clothing, of the anus, bre ast, or any

part of the g enitals of a c hild; or (2) any

touchingof any

part of the body

of a c hild, including touching thr ou g h c lot

hin g , w iththe anu s, br e a st, or any pa rt of the g e nit a ls of a pe rson. T EX .P EN .C ODE ANN . § 21.11(c)
. In I ssu e On e , App e lla

nt a rgue s th at th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o
su pp or t th e jur y ’s de te rm inatio n th at he c omm itt e d in de c e nc y wi th a c hil d b y e xpos inghis g enitals to A.H., a c hild, on March 16, 2006. Appe llant contends that neither A.H., or e ither of his parents testified that they witnessed Appe llant expos e his g enitals to the child. Howe ver, the
rec ord re flec ts that A.H. was a ble to descr ibe what Appe llant’s g enitals looked like, and that Appellant had the child touch his ere ct penis. In addition, Appellant’s own state ment to the police admitting that he had his “thing ” out when A .H.’s stepfather found him in the bathr oom-6-

with A.H. Viewingthis evidence in a light most favor able to the ve rdict, we conclude that the jury could re asonably

have c oncluded that Appe llant did ex pose himself to A.H., a nd was there fore , g uilty

of indec ency

by exposure. By

the same toke n, taken in a ne utral lig ht the evidenc e is fac tually

sufficie nt to support the jury ’s conc lusion that Appellant was guilty of the offe nse. Ac cording ly , I ssue One is ove rruled. In I ssu e Tw o, Ap pe lla

nt a rgue s th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the jury ’s deter

mination that Appellant was guilty of indec ency

with a child by

contac t beca use he c aused A .H. to expose his anus as alleg ed in Count I Iof the indictment. Appe llant contends that the e vidence is insufficient to support the jury ’s deter mination that Appellant was the per son who ca

used A.H. to e x pose himself, and that the evidenc e does not support the jury ’s finding that Appellant did so intentionally . Appellant also a sserts that the evide nce is insuffic ient to support an af

firmative f

inding that the a lleg ed ac tions were done for his own sexual g ratification. W e disag ree . A. H. te sti fi e d th at he wa s in str uc te d to un dr e ss a

nd c lim b o n th e toi le t by

the fa mil y friend who he re fer

red to a s “Stephen,” who was spe nding time at his home on March 16, 2006. Th e c hil d e xpla ine d th at th is i nd ivi du a l r ub be d lo tio n o n h is b ott om a nd ins e rt e d h is f

ing e rs in A. H. ’s bo tto m. A lth ou g h A .H . w a s una ble or unwi lli ngto i de nti fy

Ap pe lla nt i n c ourt

a s h is abuser , both his parents identified Appe llant as the individual who they discovere d in the bathroom with A.H., a

nd as the pe rson who fle d from the house afte r he w as discover ed with the child. Fur

thermore , the combined testimony by A.H. and his pa

rents that Appe llant had an
ere ction duringthe time he wa s in the bathroom with the child supports the jury ’s findingthat Appellant committed the ac ts for his own sexual gr atification. Theref ore, ha ving vie wed the-7-

rec ord both in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, and in a neutra l light, we c onclude that the evidenc e is leg ally

and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support the jury ’s deter mination that Appellant was g uilty of indec ency

by causingA.H. to expose his anus. I ssue Two is over ruled. In I ssu e Thre e , App e lla

nt a rgue s th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the jury ’s deter

mination that Appellant was guilty of indec ency

with a child bec ause he touched A.H .’s g enitals. Appellant c ontends the ver dict cannot stand be cause it is i nconsistent wi th t he jur y ’s de c isi on

to a c qu it App e lla

nt o f t hr e e oth e r c ounts inv olv ingse xua l c on ta c t w ith the child, and be cause neither of A.H.’s pa

rents witnessed A

ppellant touchingthe child’s g e nit a ls. Assuming that the jur

y ’s dec ision to hol d Appellant not guilty for se x ual assault and one count of indec ency

is inconsistent with Appellant’s conviction for the rema ining indec ency counts, our re view is limit ed to deter mining whe ther the e vidence is sufficient to support the char g e on which the convictions wer e re turned. Se e J ac k so n v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 58, 62 (T ex . Ap p . -- Da l l as 1 9 9 9 , n o p et . ). W h atth e j ury co n cl u d edre gar d i n g th e r em ai n d er o f t h e c h ar ge is imm ater ial to our sufficie ncy of the e vidence revie w. Se e id
. Ap pe lla nt a dmi ts that A .H . d id t e sti fy tha t App e lla nt p ut h is h and

in t he c hil d’ s sh or

ts, and fondle d his ge nitals. A child victim’s testimony is sufficient, eve n without additional evidenc e, to support a c onviction for indec ency . Se e Pe re z v . S tate , 113 S.W .3d 819, 838 (Tex.App.--Austin 2003, pet. re f’d) . As the sole fa ct finder and judg e of w itness cre dibilit y , the jury was fr ee to be lieve or disre g ard a ny part of the testimony
. Se e Go od ma n v . S tate , 66 S.W .3d 283, 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). As the re viewingcourt, we cannot inter fer e with the jury ’s resolution of conf

licts in the evidence , and we must defer to the jury ’s cr edibility

deter minations.-8-

See J ohnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 7. Th e re fo re , b a se d o n A .H .’ s te sti mony , th e e vid e nc e wa s b oth leg ally and fa ctually

sufficie nt to support Appellant’s conviction for indece ncy

by touchingthe child’s g enitals. I ssue Thre e is overr uled. Havingoverr

uled all of Appe llants issues, we af firm the convic tion.

Marc h 5, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. C arr, J
. (N o tP art i ci p at i n g) (Do Not Publish)