Opinion issued March 14 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 0 1
- 2 2
- 00 237
- CR

——————————— SALVADOR JIMEN E Z CORONADO , Appe lla n t V. T HE STA T E O F TEX A S , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 482 nd District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 664386

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant, Salvador Jimenez Coro nado , guilty of the f elony of fense o f aggravated sexua l assault of a chil d 1 a nd asse s sed his punis h m en t at confinement for fifteen years. In three issue s , appel l ant c ontends that the trial

1 See T EX
. P E N AL C ODE A NN
. § § 22.0 21(a), (e)

.2

court lacked jurisdiction and the trial court erred in denying appellant ’ s motion for directed verdict and ad mitt ing certain evidence

. W e a f firm. Backg round The complainant, A.C. , testified that as a child he lived with his mot her (the

“ complainant ’ s mother ” ) , his three sisters

— R.C., L.C., and V.C.

— a nd appellant , an adult male, in an apartment in Harris County , Texas . Appellant was not the complainant ’ s biological father. A ppellant mo ved in with th e complainant ’ s famil y when the compla inant w as in the third grade

. The complainant ’ s mother worked a lot when he was a child, so he did not see her that often. According to
the com plainant , his mother left for work ar ound 6:00 a.m. She wo uld also sometimes work in the even ings or overnight

. As to his sisters, the complainant explained that R.C. was about four years
older than he was , and she was “ pretty much the maternal figure. ” L.C . was clos e in age to th e complainant, and V.C. was five ye ars younger than the complainant

. V.C. was about on e year old when appellant moved in with the complainant ’ s family, and for most of her childhood, she did not know that appellant was not her
biol ogical father. Regarding the apartmen t where the family lived, t he complainant testifi ed th at the complainant ’ s mother and ap pellant slept in the primary bedroom. The3

complainant ’ s sisters slept in the second bedroom in the apartment, and the complainant slept in the living room on the couch. Appellant worked as a painter, and he worke d while t he children were at school. Appellant wou ld return to the apartment after work either with the complainant ’ s mother or by hi m self . Most evenings, appellant was alo ne with the complainant and the complainant ’ s sisters in the apartment , a nd a ppellant would usually stay in his room during that time with the door locked . When the complainant went to bed at nigh t, typically appellant was the only adult at home. The compl ainant further testified that one day, wh en he was in the third grade, h e and L.C. go t off the school bus afte r school and a man appro ached them and masturbated in front of them. They went home and told R.C. about the incident, and R.C. told the complaina nt ’ s mother and appel lant. The next day, the complainant and appellant were alone in the family ’ s apartment , and appellant cal led the comp laina nt to come into appellant ’ s bedroom

. Appellant then asked the complainant about the mast urbation incident. Appellant wa s laying down on the
bed in his room and masturbating under the bed covers while he spoke to the
comp lainant . The com plainant told appellant that he saw the man ’ s “ private area

. ”
A ppellant then asked the complainant , “ Did it lo ok like this? , ” and showed th e complainant his erect penis. The complainant felt scared and shocked and did not

“ know what was g oing on

. ” The com plainant asked appellant why he was asking4

questions about the mast urbation incident, but appellant did not have a good

answer. Appellant then told the complainant to leave the bedroom. The complainant did not tell a nyone about what had happ ened because he “ didn ’ t know what to do at that point. ” And he felt like his mother was “ ser ious ” about her relationship with appellant because she br ought him to l ive in the apartment with the family. After the above

- described in cident , appellant be gan to find “ any excuse to

ma ke [ the complainant ] g o to [appe llant ’ s] room ” whenever the complainant was home alone

. 2 Appellant would yell to the complainant f rom h is bedroom and ask the complainant to bring him a d rink . The complaina nt would do what app ellant asked because when he did not, appellant would tell the complainant ’ s mother that the complainant was being disrespectful. Each time the complainant went into appellant ’ s bedroom, a ppellant would bring up the masturbation incide nt again and ask the complainant “ [s]o [w as] ther e anything that you wanted to do to that guy

. ” The complainant felt pressur ed into “ saying yes ” and that he did want “ to do something to th [e] guy . ” Appellant told the complainant t hat he might like to

“ to uch ” a penis and he would not “ know unless [he] tr [ied]. ” Appellant told the compla inant to touch appellant ’ s penis , and the co mplaina nt complied.

2 The c ompl ainant noted that anytime he was alon e in appel lant ’ s bedroom, appellant told h im to close the door and lock it.5

T h e complainant further t estified that o ne night, when he was still in the third grade, appellant called for the complainant , wh o was in the living room, and
told him to come into appellant ’ s bedroom. When the complainant entered the room, appell ant was wa tching the television and masturbating under the bed

covers. Appellant wanted to talk about the masturbati on i ncident ag ain, a nd he asked the complainant “ [ i]s there something that you want to do. ” The complainant responded, “ I don ’ t know. Is there something that you need me to do? ” Appella nt told the complainant that he could touch appellant ’ s penis and he would not get in tr ouble. The complainant gave in and “ st arted

. . . masturbating [appellant]

. ” Appellant gave the complainant ins tructions on wha t to do. At the time, the complainant ’ s sisters were asle ep in their bedroom and the complainant ’ s m other was at work. The com plainant felt that he had t o d o whatever appellant told him to do because if he did not appellant would “ find a way to get [ the complainant ] punis hed

. ” And the complai nant felt that he would get in trouble if he did not touch appella nt ’ s pen is

. The compl ainant stopped masturbating ap pellant and left appellant ’ s bedroom when the complainant ’ s mother called appellant and told him that she was on her way home from work. Appel lant told the complai nant to pretend t hat h e was asleep in th e living room when the co mplainant ’ s mother got home

.6

The next morning , the complainant asked his mother if appellant had told her anything about the day before, and the complainant ’ s mother said no. The complainant thou gh t that appellant “ would tell her, ” and that if he had n ot, then it meant that what ha d happened was not a big deal. The complainant was also worried about getting into trouble , and appellant had told the complain ant not to tell his mother or sisters.
Th e complainant further explained tha t appellant co ntinued having the complainant masturb ate appellant fr equently, and it would usually happen at nighttime

. 3 The complainant explained that appellant made him feel guilty about what was happening and that it was t he complainant ’ s own fault or that the complain ant “ wanted it. ” Appellant told th e complainant , “ This is what you asked for , ” and if the complainant said something about what was happening, it would

“ cause [ the complain ant ’ s ] family to

. . . go in [to] turmoil ”

— his sisters would be
sep arated, and the compla inant ’ s mother would be d eport ed. 4 Appellant stopped

3 The complainant estimated that the sexual interactions with appellan t h appened about five times a mo nth. They occurred until the complainan t w as in the eighth grade, and then s t arted aga in when the complainant was in high school.
4 At one point, when the complainant was in the fourth grade, he spoke to R.C. about what had be en happening to him. R.C. had ask ed the complainant why appellant “ke[p t] telling [him] to go into [appe l lant ’ s] r oom , ” and th e complainant said it was because appellant would tell him to “do things with him

. ” The com plainant explained to R.C. what appella nt had been asking him to do. R.C. to ld the co mplainant that the same t hing had been happening to her. R.C. als o stated that she had told their grandmother about what had been happenin g to her , and the grand mother had spok en with the c omplainant ’ s mother

. Because the7

short of threaten ing to physically harm the co mplainant though or the complainant ’ s family. According to the complainant, duri ng the summer between the third and fourth grade s , app ellant would try to “ get [the comp lainant ] alone ” in t he apartment du ring th e day . Sometimes, the comp lainant ’ s mother would go to
church and appellant would t ell the complainant to “ stay home ” or he woul d suggest that the complainant ’ s mother take just t he complainant ’ s sisters to church

. Appellant would also take the co mplainant to work with him , and if they were alone, appellant would “ make [the complainant] touch ” appellant ’ s penis and
masturb ate appell ant. E ventually, the complainant told his mother that he di d not want to go to wor k with appellant anymore . Further , wh en the complainant was in the fo urth grade, appellant told the complainant to put his mouth on appellant ’ s penis, and the complainant co mplied. Appellant then pu shed the complainant ’ s head down. Appellant rubbed the

c omplainant ’ s bare bottom while this occurred. 5 Appella nt also had po rnography play ing o n the television in his bed room. Appellant ejaculated in fron t of the complainant

. The complainant ’ s mother was at work when this in cident occu rred.
complainant ’ s mother did not believe R.C. , R.C. told the complainant that no one would b elieve th em if they said anythi ng to another adult. 5 T h e complainant also explained that appellant would pu t his finger in the complainant ’ s anus whe n the complainant was mastur bati ng appellant or en gaging in oral sex.8

A s to another inc ident, the complainant explained th at when he was about
ten or eleven years old, appellant lined th e complainant and the complainant ’ s sisters up in the living room and aske d them if they knew “ what a pus sy [was]? ” When t he complainant asked if he “ ha[d] one , ” appellant got mad and took th e complainant and R.C. into the bathroom in the a partment . Appellant made R.C. take down h er pants and underwear and instructed her to get in a certain position

. He then told the compla inant, “ Thi s is what a pussy is. ” Appellant also put his fingers inside R .C. ’ s vagina and told the complainant, “ [H] ere ’ s where you will put your penis. ” R.C. was cr ying and in pain. Appellant then told R.C. t o pull her
pa nts up, and they all left the b athroom. On another occasion , when the complainant was roughly the same ag e, appellant called the complainant to come in to his bed room . R.C. was already in
the roo m, and a

ppellant was masturbating under the bed covers. A p pellant told the complainant to t ake off his clothes, and the compl ainant took o ff his pants and underwear. Appellant told R.C. to do th e sa me thing. Appellant then put his fingers in R.C. ’ s vagina and i nstructed the complainant to make his pen is “ hard. ” Appellant made R.C. turn around , and instructed the complainant t o start having9

sexual int ercourse with R. C. When R.C. started bleeding, she ran out of the room, and the com plainant fo llowed her out. 6
W hen the complainant was in the seventh gr ade and about thirteen years old , his famil y and appellant moved to a house i n a different area of Harris County. In the house, the complainant had his own bedro om , the complainant ’ s sisters shared a bedroom, and a ppellant and the complainant ’ s mother sha red a bedroom. Around that time, appellant was “ laid off from work, ” and he did not have a steady job. When the complainant would get home from school, he and his sisters were often alone in the house with app ellant.
On one occasion after the move, a ppellant started masturbating in front of the c omplainant while they were in the primary bedroom. Appellant then told the complainant to put his mouth on appellant ’ s penis , and the complainant complied

. According t o th e complainant, appellant “ just had a way of just

. . . making [him] do it. ” While in the new house, the sexu al inter actions between appellant and the
comp lainant happened frequently.
Additional ly, w hen the complainant was about fifteen years old, 7 appellant told hi m to put on a pair of the c omplainant ’ s mother ’ s underw ear. Appellant wa s

6 T he complainant also testified t hat once, when he was in the fifth grade, appellant asked him to take p hotogra phs of the complainant ’ s sisters when they were in the shower. The compl ainant said no and told appellant that he did not “ want [appellant] to u ching or hur ting [his] sisters. ”10

p laying pornography on the telev ision in his bedroom, and he had the c omplainant stand in front of th e television and squat down. A ppellant masturbat ed while watching the complaina nt do this. Appellant then had the complainant come near him and asked t he co mplainant if he “ wanted to do it , ” meaning to let appellant penetra te hi s anus . Appellant moved the underwear the complainant was wearing to the side, and appellant ’ s penis made cont act with the complainant ’ s anus. The complainant felt really scared and told appellant , “ I ’ m not goin g to do it. ” Appel lant got mad at him and said, “ Get the fuck out of here. ” (Internal quotations omitted.) According to the complainant, a ppellant did not penetrate his anus, but

“ rub [ bed ] his penis o n [the complainant ’ s] anal area. ” The complainant fu rther testified that when he was about si xt een years old, appellant and the complainant “ go t in a physical argument. ” The c omplain an t was upset that appe llant was not working and t old appellant, “ Dude, what ar e you doing? Like, you ’ re just here wasting s pace, wasting time, and you c an ’ t even get a job. ” Appellant got very angry and started ch oking the complainant. The complainant ’ s mother separated them . That day, appellant and the complainant ’ s mother separated, and a ppellant left the house. 8

7 The com plaina nt also testified that one night, when the complainant was about fifteen years old, appellant put his mouth on the complainant ’ s pe n i s. 8 The complainant noted that appellant and the complainant ’ s mother stayed in contact for years after th e physi ca l altercation

.11

At some point, after the complainant ha d graduated from high school, L.C. told th e complain ant ’ s mother about what appellant had done to her. The complainant a lso told hi s mother what had happened between appellant and him , but h e did not give his mother all the details because he f elt like she did no t “ w ant [the] details. ” After telling his mother, the complainant wen t to speak to law
enforce ment officers

. R.C. tes tified that the complainant, L .C., and V.C. are her siblings and she is the oldest. R.C. was three years old er than L.C. and four years older than th e complainant. R.C. and her siblings ha d the same bi ological father, but he stopped being involved in thei r lives when R.C . was ten year s old. After her biological fathe r lef t, R.C. lived with her siblin gs and the complain ant ’ s mother in an apartment in Harris Co unty . Eventually, R.C. ’ s mother started dating , and appellant moved in with their family in 200 3. Appellant made sure to tell the complainant that he was not th e complainant ’ s father a nd that he did not want the complainant to call him “ dad. ”
A ccording to R.C., when appellant first moved in to the family ’ s apartment , he slept in the primary bedroom with the compl ainant ’ s mother an d V.C. , while R.C., the complainan t, and L .C. slept in the second be droom. Sometimes though, the complainant would sl eep in the living room. After about a year, R.C., L.C. ,12

and V .C. began sharing a bed room, and the complainant slept in the living room on the cou ch

. Durin g th e time appell ant lived with the family , the com plainant ’ s mother worked overnight, and R.C. was not usually awake when the compl ainant ’ s mother would return home from work. When the comp lainant ’ s mother was gone in the evenings, appellant was in the h ome alone with R. C. and her s iblings. 9 Appel lant

w ould usually stay in his bedroom , and he required the children to knock before

en tering the bedroom.
R.C. t estified that wh e n the complainant was a child, he would get in trouble with appellant for “ the smallest things. ” One time, when R.C. was with the

c omplainant ’ s mother, L.C. , and V.C. at the grocery store, the complainant went

ou tside the apa rtment without permission. When he returned, appellant put him in a cold shower and said, “ This is what you get for not list eni ng and for not asking for pe rmissi on. ” The complainant was the only child who was punished by appellant. 10 R.C. fu rther explained that while ap pellant was living in her home, she saw the complainant go into appellant ’ s bedroom “ [a] f ew times , ” b ut she did not know wh y the complainan t was inside the bed room.

9 R .C. noted that appellant was a painter, and he did not work consistently. He would only take on “ small gigs. ” 10 R.C. not ed that as the complainant got older, he ne ver wanted to be at home, and h e woul d si gn up for extracurri cu lar activ ities so that he could stay longer at school

. She also te stified as to one occasion where appellant put the complainant in a closet for misbehaving.13

R.C. also testified that on one occasion , when R.C. was about el even or twelve years old and the complainant wa s seven or eight years old, a ppellant was alone with R.C. and her siblings in the apartment

. While R.C. and her siblings

wer e watch ing a mov ie, appellant came out of his bedroom and sat in the recliner with a b lanket on top of him. Appellant then told R.C., the complaina nt, and L.C.
to “ get up, ” and he asked the complainant if he “ had a pussy. ” Appellant then touched the comp lainant ’ s penis over the complainant ’ s clothing in front of R.C. and L.C. Ap pellant told the complainant to pull down his pants and show appellant his penis , and the complainant complied. Appellant also told L.C. and
R.C . to pull down their pants, a nd th ey complied. Appellant said to the complainant, “ These are pussies. You don ’ t have this. ” R.C. then pulled up her pants and told her siblings to do the same and to go to the ir be d room. R.C. told appellant that “ what he was doing wasn ’ t right

. ” R.C . di d not tell the complainant ’ s mother about what had happened though because she was “ in disb elief ” and “ in shock

. ” As to another incident, R.C. explained that when she was twelve years old , appel lant called the complainant and R.C . to come to th e bat hroom. Appellant made the complainant la y on the floor without his pants or underwear on , and
app ellant told R.C. to sit on top of the complainant ’ s penis without her pants or und erwear on. Appellant then asked R.C. if the comp lainant ’ s penis was “ inside14

[ h er]. ” According to R.C., the complainant ’ s penis penetrated her vagin a, and the complainan t wa s crying. Appellant just stared at them. Afterward, R.C. ran to her
bedroom. She did not tell the complainant ’ s mother about wha t had h appened because she was sca red of getting into trouble. Two days after the incident, appellant “ called [R .C.] over to his room and

. . . told [her] that [she] better n ot say nothing ” beca use there “ were going to be a lot of consequences , ” like her siblin gs would be separated , the c ompla inant ’ s mother would go to jail , and R.C. would get deported

. R.C . noted that a simil ar incident happened a second time in the bathroom

a bout a month or two after the first bathroom incident , but tha t time R.C. was b l eeding from her menstrua l cycle , a nd she and the complain ant were scared. R.C. explained that th e complainant ’ s penis penetrated her va gina d uring the second
incident a s well. R.C. did not tell the complainant ’ s mother or another adult because she was sc ared and felt dis gusted.
R.C. furt her testified that when she was about twelve or thirteen years old, appellant called her to com e into his be droom and told her to s hut the door behind
h er . Appellant was watching pornography on the television , covered wit h bla nkets , and masturba ting on th e bed. Appellant pulled th e b lankets off , and he was naked. He told R.C. to touch his penis and then grabb ed her hand and held it on his penis so that she would cause him to ejaculate. After appellant ejaculated,15

he tol d R.C. to leave the room and to no t say anything. The complainant ’ s mo ther was at work when this happened , and R.C. did not tell her what hap pened because she was scared. R.C. noted that appellant made her “ masturbate him ” multiple times , 11 and when that h appened, appellant would also pene trate R.C. ’ s vagina wi th his fingers. Appellant also put his mouth on R.C. ’ s vagina, 12 and he made R.C. per f orm oral sex on him. The first time that happened, R.C. was about fift een years old , and she had gone to the stor e with a ppellant. Appell ant parke d their mini van in the parking lot, and appellant went to the back seat. He told R.C. to come back there wit h him, and he took off his pants and his underwear . Appellant asked R.C. if she

“ want[ed] to try something new

. ” Appellant grabbed R.C. ’ s head an d pushed it down to his penis. He kept his hand on the back of R.C. ’ s head the whole time,
until she started to throw up.
R.C. further explained that when she was f ourteen years old , she started sleeping with a pocketknif e under her pillow becaus e she fel t like sh e needed to protect herself from appellan t. One night she made herself go to bed earlier than usual because sh e though t “ that would prevent [anything] from happening. ” But

11 R.C. estimated that appellant made her mast urbate him a bout once a w eek. It was happening “ on a normal basis. ”
12 During her testimony, R.C. described the i ncidents where appellant put his mouth on her vagina. And she testified that appellant had als o rubbed his penis against her vagina for five to ten minutes. He stopp ed when he ejaculated. Th at occurr ed a handful of times according to R.C.16

a ppellant came into her bedroom and whi spered her name and told her “ to c om e. ” When R.C. “ looke d away, ” appellant “ grabbed [her ] by the shoulder ” and “ pulled [her] shirt. ” R.C. then looked at appellant and “ pulled out the knife and

. . . told
him

. . . to leave [her ] alone. ” Appellant “ went pale , ” “ [h]is ey es widened, ” and h e walked out of the room

. 13 After the knife incident, appellant stopped “ m essing with ” her for about a year , until she w as fifteen years old

. Appellant t hen started calling her into his bedroom again and engaging in the s ame sexual b ehavior as before.
W h e n R.C. was seventeen years old, she told appellant that she was not going to engage in anymore s exual encou nters with hi m , and she ran away from home. 14 When R.C. was about twenty years old, the complainant ’ s mother and
ap pellant broke up. However, there we re times where appellant would still s tay at the complainant ’ s mother ’ s ho me for a few days

.

13 L.C. testified that she shared a bed with R.C., and R. C. always made L.C. sleep on the inside of the bed , closest to the wall. This meant that R.C. slept on the outside edge of the bed. One night, L.C

. “ felt a p resence in side [the] [bed]room, ” and she could hear appellant walk ing across the floor. L.C. heard appellant say to R.C.,

“ Let me see, let me see. ” R.C. tol d appellant, “ No , leave me alone. ” R.C. then

“ pull[ed] out the knife she had under her p illow, ” a nd appellant “ got af raid. ” He went back to his bedroom. L.C. tho ught that R.C. slept with a p ocket knife “ most of the nights. ”
14 R.C. noted that sh e had run away twice when she was younger bec ause of what appellant had been doing to her. And wh en she wa s abo ut thirteen or fourteen year s old, she told her grand mother that appellant ha d been touching her, but nothing really happened. That made her no t want to talk about what a ppellant had done “ ever again. ”17

In total, R.C. estimated that appellant had sexually abused her for six or
seven years . She believed that the abuse stopped wh en she was about seventeen
years o ld

. L.C. testified that R.C., the complainant, and V.C. were her siblings. R.C. was the eldest , and the complainant and V.C. were younger than her, although she
and the complainant were close in age. According to L.C., a ppellant was her stepfather

. 15 H e “ c ame into [her] life ” when she was about seven or eight years old and moved into the apartment where L.C. ’ s family was living in Harris Cou nty. 16 Appellant and the complainant ’ s mother shared a bedro om in the apartment,

an d in t he beginning, R.C., the comp la inant , a nd L.C. s hared a bedroom. V.C. was still little when appellant moved in, and she slept in the complain ant ’ s m other ’ s

room . But appellant told the complainant ’ s mother that “ girls [should] sleep with girls

. ” So , the complainant began sleeping o n the couch in the livi ng room , and
V.C. began sharing a bedroom with R.C . and L.C.
As to appellant ’ s behavior while he lived with L.C. ’ s family , L.C. explained that appellant would say thing s like “ girl s go with girls and guys . . . go with guys, ”

15 L.C. expla ined t hat her biolog ical f ather had been “ arrested and deported. ” L.C. ’ s biological father was abu sive t oward the complainant ’ s mother , and on one occasion he “ tried to kill [the comp lainant ] in front of ” L.C. Because of the trauma she experienced in her life, L.C. explained th at she gene rally “ kept ” traumatic things to herself. 16 Ac cording to L.C., w he n appellant moved in with her family, V.C. was about two y ears old, and V.C. believ ed , during her childhood, that appellant was her biological father. L.C

. testified that eventu al ly, appel lant “ touched ” V.C.18

which m e ant that th ere were times whe n the com plainant would stay behind at the apartment with appellant , while the compla inan t ’ s mother, R.C., L.C., and V.C. went places. L .C. recalled that when the girls would return h ome, the complainant

was often not in the a part ment because he would “ run away. ” On one occasion , L.C. went to the grocery store with the complainant ’ s mothe r, R.C. , and V.C., and when they returned home, appellant was outside screaming the complainant ’ s name. L .C. went to find the com plainant at a fr i end ’ s house, and the complainant refused to come home. 17 Further, L.C. testified that when appellant was in th e apartme nt, he was always locked in the complainant ’ s mother ’ s bedroom. And appella nt made the children kno ck on the bedroom door before they co u ld enter the room. According to L.C., there were periods of time where the children would be a lone in the
ap artment w ith appellant because the c omplainant ’ s mother worked mostly at night. 18
As to her interactions wi th appellant, L.C. rec alled that one tim e , when she was about eight or nine years old, she was taking a bath in the bathroom in her famil y ’ s apartment , with th e shower curtain closed. Appellant came into the

17 L.C. additionally noted that the complainant tried to stay away from the apartment as much as possible; he was involved in many extracurricular activities at school. She also explained that the comp lainant had a hiding sp ot in the a partment, but L.C. never knew what the complainant was hiding from. 18 L .C. testified that the complainant ’ s mother would leave for work at ab out 5:00 p.m.19

bathroom “ very q uietly

. ” Appellant pulled down his pants and sat on the toilet

. He th e n peeked into the bath tu b, where L.C. was “ hunched into

. . . a little ball ” because she did not want him to see her n aked. He asked L.C. w hat she was doing. He then told her to “ [s]tand up

. ” When L.C. asked w hy, appellant responded: “ I want to see how you look, and just turn around. ” Appellant threate ned that if L.C. did not comply with his request, he would tell the complainant ’ s mother and “ tell CPS, ” which L.C. thought mean that she would be separa ted from he r siblings.
L.C. co mplied , and her br easts, vagina, and b ottom were exposed . Appellant also ask ed L.C., if she “ want[ed] t o see [him], ” and L.C. told appellant, “ No, I don ’ t want to see you. ” Appellant then closed the shower curtai n , stood up, pu lled up his pants, and left th e bathroom. L.C. s tated that she di d not tell anyone about happened because her response to experiencing trauma was to “ hid e in [her] little spot in [her] room. ”
L.C. also testified that when she was about nine or ten ye ars old, her family and app ellant went on a va cation to New Orleans, Louisiana, and they stayed with
L.C. ’ s aunt and uncle in a townhouse. While there, L.C., V.C. , the co mplainant ’ s mother, and appellant al l slept in the same bed. While napping , L.C. felt “ a sensati on with the she ets

. . . going up an d down, like the breeze. ” L.C. woke up , and appellant was mast urba ting under the bed covers . Because V.C. was sleep ing b etween L.C. and appellant, L.C. moved V.C. away from appel lant because she did20

not want appellant to “ hurt ” V.C. or “ do something to [V.C. ] while she was still asleep. ” L.C. laid there facing away from appell ant. Appellant then turned L.C.
around , wh ile he was masturb ating and started touching L.C. ’ s vagina under her underwear . A ppellant told L.C. , “ [D] on ’ t let no body touch you right here

. Only

me. ” Appellant continued touching L.C. ’ s vagina until he heard footsteps on the
stairs. He then imme diately turned around , put his back toward L.C., and stopped masturbating. When the complainant ’ s mother opened the door to the bedroom , she aske d if anyone was hungry, and appellant got up. L.C. stayed in the room with V.C. L. C. did not say anything to anyone at the time , but after the family
returned from New Orlea ns, L.C. told R.C. about what had happene d. L.C. did no t tell an adult though be cause she was scared that no one would believe her

. L.C. further e xplained that after she and the complainant graduated from
hi gh school, appellant and the complainant ’ s mother broke up due to appellant ’ s cheating, a nd appellant “ officially [moved] out of ” the family ’ s ho me . A p pellant then dated another woman, who also had young er children

. L.C. noted that t here were still times whe n appellant would stay with the com plainant ’ s mother after they had broke n up. L.C

. did not like the fact that t he complainant ’ s mother was

“ tryi ng to get [appellant] to come back. ” L .C. was upset that appellant had made the comp lainant ’ s mother “ cry , ” but not about appellant ’ s cheating because she

was “ pretty o kay with [appellant] lea vi ng . ”21

According to L.C., afte r she ha d her own child as a young adult , she visited the complainant ’ s mother, and appellant was staying at the home. While L.C. changed her daughter ’ s diaper, she felt that appellant was looking at her d aughter ’ s vagina , an d it re minde d her of “ the way he [ had] looked at ” L.C . L .C . stopped visiting the compla inant ’ s mother after that because she did not want the compl ainan t ’ s mother to hav e appellant in her life. When she was twenty

- three years old , L.C. told her aunt about w hat appellant had done to her, and her aunt believed her. L.C. ’ s aunt told the complainant ’ s mother, but the complainant ’ s mother did not believe L.C. at fir st ; she doubted L.C. A few days af ter L.C. mad e the disclosure, the complainant ’ s mother called L .C. and told her, “ Let ’ s go to the p olice. ” L.C. went to sp eak with law enforcemen t officers along with the complainant , the complainan t ’ s mother,

a nd V.C.
V.C. testified that appellant was her stepfather. He came into her life when she was about two o r three years old, and he r aised her. V.C. considered appella nt to be her father , and she did not learn that app ellant was not her bi ological father

u ntil she was about seven or eight years old. V.C. further explained that she was the youngest ch ild in he r family. The complainant was si x years older , L.C. was seven years older , and R.C. was ten22

years older than she was

. V.C. described R. C. as “ [t]he one that t[ook] care of [the

s iblings] a lot of the time, ” and L.C. was “ like a second mothe r ” to V.C.
As to her relationship with appellant, V.C. stated tha t growing up she “ was daddy ’ s little girl. ” She had a c lose relationship with appella nt, and he was alw ays nice and loving toward her. Appellant “ was everything to ” V.C. In comparison, appe llant always tre ated the complain ant li ke “ he was

. . . a b oth er . ” “ [A] lot o f the time , . . . [appellant] would ju st treat [the complainant ] like

cra p , ” and appellant “ made it seem like it was an inconveni ence [to] hav[e] [the complainant] around. ” The complainant woul d frequently “ disappea r [] off to
friends ’ houses

. ” Acco r ding to V.C., R.C . and the complainant ’ s mother would often fight about appellant and that would cause R. C. to run away from home. As to L.C., she kept her distance from appellant.
W hile appellant l ived with V.C. ’ s family, appellant sha red a bedroom with the complainant ’ s mother. V.C. would sometimes sleep in the same bedroom as her sist ers, but she would also sleep in the bedroom with the complainant ’ s mother and appellant. The com plainant sle pt i n the living room most o f t he time.
A ccording to V.C., while growing up, there were times where appellant was home alone with her and her sib lings, without the complainant ’ s mother being pr esent

. And whenever appellant was at home, he was mostly in his b ed room. V. C. had to kno ck on the door before s he could enter appellant ’ s be droom. V.C. never saw23

appellant doing anything with the complaina nt, R. C. , or L.C. in the bedroom. The few times that appellant was in the l iving room, ins tead of his bedroom, it was just V.C. and him w atching t elevision toge ther because V.C. ’ s si blings would choose to go to thei r room. As to appellant ’ s sexual interac tions with V.C., V.C. testified that when she was about seven or eight years old , she lived in an ap artment in Har ris County. One day, V. C. was laying in her bedroom. The compl ainant ’ s mother told appellant to go lay down with V.C. because V.C. did not l ike to sleep alone and the complainan t ’ s mother had to leave the home. Appellant laid down with V .C. and grabbed her shorts, as king “ [W ]h at is this. ” V.C. told appellant, “ Those are my shorts. ” Appellant then grabbed V.C. ’ s underwear and asked , “ Wh at is this. ” Next, appell ant “ w ent under [her] under wear ” and “ grabbed ” V.C. ’ s vagina , asking

“ What is this. ” V.C. “ s tayed quiet ” because she did not know how t o respond. Appellant grabbed V.C. ’ s vagina for about a minute, a nd then appellant got up and walke d out of the room. V.C. went to sleep. A couple of days later, V.C. told R.C. and L.C. about what had happened.
R.C. “ got mad ” and told V.C., “ Don ’ t ever let him touch you like that because he ’ s
not eve n your r ea l dad. ” L.C. then got mad at R.C., and to ld R.C. , “ She ’ s not24

supposed to know that yet

. ” R.C. also told V.C. that “ no one[] [was] going to believe ” her

. 19 V.C. believe d R. C.
Late r , when V.C. was about seventeen years old, L.C. disclosed what appellant had done to he r , and L.C. also reminded V.C. t hat appellant had touched her too. At the time , appellant w as “ tr ying to come back into [V.C. ’ s ] life and [L.C. ] did n ’ t see that as okay. ” And L.C. did not want appellant around V.C. or their family

. At first, V.C. was mad at L.C. because V.C. thought t hat L.C. just did not want her to have a relationship with her “ dad. ” But V.C. ’ s memory came ba ck
in “ bits and pieces , ” and V.C. told her therapist about appell ant touching her vagina. V.C. ’ s therapist told her that blocking out that memory “ from [her] h ead ”

was “ pretty much a normal trauma response. ” After her therapy session, V.C. went to the po lice station , wi th the complainant ’ s mothe r and L.C., to disclose what had happened to her

. Fi nally, V. C. testifi ed that appellant and the complainant ’ s mother ended their relationship when V.C. was about thirteen years old. The complainant ’ s mother caugh t appellant chea ting, and a ppellant “ left to be with ” his girlfriend. Houston Police Department Officer D. Yoon testifie d that he was in charge of inve s tigating the sexual abuse claims that L.C. had made against appellant. L.C.

19 A bout a year later, R.C . told V.C. that appellant “ would go int o [R.C. ’ s] bedroom and th at one ti me she took out a knife because he was going to go ahead and be touching on her. ”25

all eged that appellant had touched her vagi na “ under the blan kets ” when they were sharing a bed in Louisiana

. L.C. explai ned that she had been la ying in a bed with V.C., and she moved V.C. away from appellant. Appellant began touching L.C. over her clothes, but under the bed covers. Appellant th e n progressed to touching
L.C. ’ s va gina under her clothes. L.C. also descri bed to Yoon the incident whe n appellant “ c [ame] int o the bathroom when[] she was taking a shower , ” “ forc [ed] [L.C.] to expose herself t o him , ” and offered t o show L.C. his penis.
O fficer Yo on further testified that d uring his inves tiga tion, he spoke to the compla inant, R.C., and V.C. as well. According t o Yoon, t he complainant a lleged
that “ a ser ies of events of sexual assault [occurred] starting at a young age leading into adultho od ” and that the sexu al abuse “ escalat [ed] once [the complainant ]

. . . reached middle school. ” For instance, appellant made the complainant “ masturbate hi[m] , ” and appellant showed the complainant his penis. Appellant also had t he complainant pe rform or al sex o n him

. The sexual a buse began when the complainant was in elementary school, and the co mp lainant

“ outlined abuse th at stretched all the way from when[] he was a very small child all the way until he was about [ninet een] ye ars old

. ” The complainan t and R. C. also told Yoon that appellant had “ forced them to have incestuous sex ” at leas t on ce. As to that instance, a ppella nt made the complain ant lay on the bathr o om floor and made R. C. get on top of the complainant. R.C. also told Yoon that appellant made26

he r “ masturbate ” him when sh e was a teenager. And R.C. described appellant forcing R.C. to perform oral sex on him , and appellant touching her vagina. When R.C. spoke to Yoon , she detailed “ a long span of sexual abuse that she suffered ” at the hand s of app ellant. As to V.C., Officer Yoon testified that V

. C. did not know anyone else other than appellant as her fat her. And while in therapy , V.C. re aliz ed that she had b locked a memory of appellant touching her vagina . Appella nt touched V.C. on top of her clo thing and asked, “ What are these. ” Appellant then touched V.C. o n top of her underwear a nd asked V.C. , “ What is this. ” When appellant touched
V.C. ’ s vagina under her underwear, he a sked, “ What is this. ” When Officer Yoon spoke to the complainant ’ s mother and the children ’ s grandmother, both admitted that they did not initially believe the children about the
sexual abus e . But then they “ came around ” and believed the children. Officer Yoon also noted that he spoke to a ppell ant during his investigat ion , and appellant said that “ everyone else was je alous of the relationship he had with [V.C.] and they were out to g et him. ” Appellant said that none of the children, other than L.C., “ would have any reason to sa y anything bad ab out him. ” Appellant deni ed the a llegations against him

.27

Appellant testified that he met the complainant ’ s mother in 2004 or 2005, and the complainant ’ s mo ther had four children

— R.C., L.C., the complainant, and V.C. R.C. was abou t ten years old when appel lant met her. When appell ant live d with the complainant ’ s mother, everyone in the home would get up about 6:30 a.m. Appellant would get ready for work and leave the
ho me in the morning. The complainant ’ s mother would stay in the home during the day. Whe n a ppellant would arrive home aro und 6:00 p.m., the complainant ’ s mother would still be at home , and the children would be home from school. The compla inan t ’ s mother would leave the home to go to work around 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. , and s he would return ho me about 10:00 p.m. or 11 :00 p.m. Appellant would be alone with the children at home for about four or five hours in the evenings , and he had “ access t o al l of the [children ] when the [ complainant ’ s mother] was gone. ” During that time, the children would play outside until it

“ b eg[an] ge tting dark. ” 20 Ap pellant would then get the children to come inside and have dinner. The children would watch televis ion and play game s, while appellant was in his bed room . Ap pellant stated that the door to his bedroom w as not locked, and the do or woul d be “ sligh tly open or open ” while he watched television. T he children would stay up l ate in the l iving room , and they went to bed on their own.
The children would be asleep before the c omplain ant ’ s mother got home from

20 According to appellant, the chil dren were always together when the y le ft to go outside an d when the y came back inside.28

wo rk

. Appellant did note t hat there were time s that the children would come into his bedroom individually when the complainant ’ s mother was not in the home , but appellant was “ [n]ot often ” alone in h is bedr oom with th e complainant

. As to the allegatio ns against him , appellant denie d havi ng anal sex with the complainant , and he d enied making the complainant perform oral sex on him. Appellant stated that he nev er had a “ hom osexual relationship ” with the complainant. 21 And he denied that he was ever left alone with the complainant in the home when th e complainant ’ s mother and si blings went to church. Further, a ppellant denied to uching R.C. ’ s vagina, “ rub[bing ] [his] penis on her vagina, ” and forcing R.C. to perform or al sex on him. 22 A nd appellant denied ever touching L.C. inappropriat ely or fondl ing L.C. during a trip to Louisiana. 23
He also stated that the children slep t together in a bedroom during that tri p, but h e slept in the living room of the house where the family was staying. He was never
in a b edroom alone with L.C. and V.C. Additio nally , appellant denied touching
V.C . He stated that he went to a therapy se ssion with V.C., and the therapist explai ned that V.C. had anxiety because he “ had left [V. C. ’ s] li fe. ” To appellant, V.C. was his daughte r, and it made him feel “ [v]ery badly ” t hat she had made

21 Appellant also denie d that the complai na nt ever r an away to a friend ’ s house.
22 Appellant admitt ed that he would take R.C. to the store with him, and he drove a minivan at times. 23 Appellant admitted th at he met L.C. ’ s ch ild when the child was abo ut eighteen months old.29

allegations ag ainst him. Appellant never punished V.C. because “ [s]he was the baby ” in the family.
A ppellant also testified that his relationship with the complainant ’ s mother ended becaus e she foun d out that appellant was cheati ng on her with another

woman. The children h ate d the other woman and were angry with appellant for cheating on the complainan t ’ s mothe r and a band oning V.C . L.C. , in particular, felt that appellant was not taking V.C. ’ s feel ings into account after appella nt moved on with the other woman , and she threatened appellant that he was “ g oing to get it from [her]. ” The complainant had a lso thre atened appellant because appellant was in a relationship with the other woman. Appellant admitted that the first time he had ever mentioned the children threatening him was during his t estimony at tr ial. J urisdiction In his second issue, appel lant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction o ver his case because “ the indictm ent failed to state an offense. ”

“ A t ria l court ’ s jurisdiction over a criminal case consists of the power of the court over the subject matter of the case , co upled with personal jurisdiction over the accused. ” Jenkins v. State , 592 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. C rim. App. 2018) (internal qu ota tions omi tted). “The presentment of a valid indictment vests the district court with jurisdiction of the cause.” Id. ; se e also T EX
. C ONST
. art. V, § 12(b). Even if an indictment has a substantive defect, it is sufficient t o confer30

personal and subject

- m atter jurisdiction under the Texas Constitution if it : (1) “charge[s] a person” and (2) “charge[s] t he c ommission of an offe nse.” Jenkins , 592 S.W.3d at 898 , 901 ( “ An in dictment can be defective , but still be an indictment t hat vests the cou rt with jurisd iction. ” ) ; see also Teal v. State , 230 S.W.3d 172, 1 79 ( Tex. Crim. App

. 2007) (for indictment to be cons titutionally valid, and th us confer jurisdiction on trial court, it need only allege that person committed offense)

. An indictment mus t be “clear enoug h to give a [] [defen dant] adequate notice” of the charge against him and to enable the trial court, appellate court, and de fend ant to “identify what penal

- code provision is alleged and whether that penal

- code provi sion is one that vests jurisdiction i n the trial co urt.” Jenkins , 592 S.W.3d at 901 (internal quotation marks omitted); Kirkpatrick v. State , 279 S.W.3d 324, 32 8 (T ex. Crim. App. 2009). Whether an indictment is sufficient to confer jurisdiction presents a question of la w, which we determine de n ovo . Leone
v. State , 508 S.W

. 3d 346, 347 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref ’ d).
A ppellant asserts that the indictmen t in this case fail ed to “ charge the

c ommission of an offense. ” 24 To resolve this issue, we look to the indictment “ as a

24 Appellant does not a ssert tha t the indictment failed to “ charge a person. ” See Jenkins v. State , 592 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2018)

. In deed, the indictment listed appellant ’ s full name, race , date of birth , g ender, address, and county identification number ; it bor e the title : “ Th e State of Texas v s. Salvador Jimenez Coronado , ” an d it alleged that “ Salvador Ji menez Coro n ad o , hereinafter st yled the Defendant ” committed the charged offense. See id. at 9 01

– 02; Thetf ord v. State , No. 0 2

- 18

- 00488

- CR , 2021 WL 278913, at *6 ( Tex. Ap p.

— Fort Worth31

whole. ” Je nkins , 592 S.W .3d at 903 . In other words, we must determine if the

“ face of the charging instrument [was] clear enough to give [ the defendant ] adequate notice of the charge against him

. ” Id. at 901 (internal quotation s omitted). “ [ I] n order for a defect to r ender the instrument a non - indictment, the defect must make it impossible for the defendant to know with what off enses he
ha d been c harged. ” Id. (internal quotations omitted). If the allegations in the indictment are clear enough for the defendant t o ide ntify the offense alleged, then the instrument is sufficient to confer jurisdiction , regardless of whether an eleme nt of the offense is absent. See Teal , 230 S.W.3d at 180. A person commits the offense of continu ous sexual abuse of a young child if ( 1) th e person , (2) who is seventeen years old or older at the time of the commission of ea ch of the acts , (3) commits a series of t wo or more acts of sexual abuse (4) during a period of thirty or more days, and (5) at the time of the commission of each of the a cts the vi ctim is younger than fourteen ye ars old. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 21. 02 (b) ; see also H ines v. State , 551 S.W.3d 771, 78 1

– 82 (Tex . App

. — F ort Worth 2017, no pet.)

. An “ act of sexual abuse ” means an act that violates one or more spe cified penal code sections , including an act

Jan. 28, 2021 ) (mem. op., not designated for publication ) , re v ’ d in part on other grounds , No. PD

- 0258

- 21, 2021 WL 2674484 , at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2 021 ) (not designated for publication )

.32

constituting indecency with a child, 25 sexual as sault, 26 aggravated sexual assault, 27 and sexual perfor mance by a child. 28 See T EX
. P E N AL C ODE A NN
. § 21.02 (c) (internal quotations omitted)

. Here, the indictment listed, as the char g e against appellant: “ FELONY CHARGE: Sexual Abuse of a Child

– Continuous ” and alleged that appel lant ,

o n or about September 1, 2007, continuing through October 30, 2010, did then and there unlawfully , during a period o f time of thirt y or more da ys in dura tion, commit at least two acts of sexual ab use against a child younger than fourteen years of age, incl uding an act constituting the offense of aggravat ed sexua l assault of a child, committed against [the complainant] on or about Sept ember 1, 2007, an d an act con stituting the offense of sexual ass ault of a child, committed against [the com plainant] on or about October 30, 2010, and [appellant] was at least sevent een years of age at the time of the commission of each of those acts

. [ 29 ] When reviewing t h e ind ictment as a whole and comparing it t o Tex as P enal Code section 21.01(b), t he allegations in the indictment are clear enough for appellant to identify the offen se alleged and would have given appellant adequate notice o f the charge against him. See J enkin s , 592 S.W .3d at 901 ; Teal , 230 S.W.3d at 180 ; see also Perry v. State , No. 06

- 21

- 0007 6

- CR , 2022 WL 1159539,

25 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 21.11 (a )(1). 26 See id. § 22.011.
27 See id. § 22.021. 28 See id. § 43.25. 29 The original indictment containe d different alleged dates for th e commission of the alleged offense. The original indictment was amended , wit hout ob jection, to reflect t he dates list ed above

.33

at *2 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Apr. 12, 2022, n o pet.) (mem

. op., not de signated for publication ) (w h ere ind ictmen t ’ s heading stated, “ CHARGE: ASS AULT FAMILY
OR HOUSEH OLD MEMBER W/PREV. CONV ” a nd “ THIRD DEGREE FELONY, ” p enal code section was clearly ascertainable by district court an d d efendant). Thus, we hol d that the indictment was sufficient to vest the trial cour t with subject

- matter jurisdicti on . 30 We overrule appellant ’ s second issue. Dire cted Verdict In h is first issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for d irect ed verdic t because the indictment did not allege a proper underlying offense to sup port the alleged offen se of cont inuous sexual abuse of a
young child.

30 To the extent that appellant ’ s second issue can be construed as a complaint that the indictment in this case contained a defe ct , we note that a defendant cannot complain on appeal of any def ect, er ror, or irregularity of form or substance in a n indi ctmen t if he did not object to the de fect, error, or irregularity before tria l. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 1.14(b)

. Here, appellant d id not raise his complain t in the trial court that th e indic tment “ fail[ed] to des cribe an offense ” becaus e sexual as sault of a child “ for a person under [fourteen] years of age is not an offense and it is one of the elements of the all e ged “ [c]ontinuous [s]ex ual [a]buse of a [c]hil d indictment

. ” See Walker v. Stat e , 594 S.W.3d 330, 33 8

– 40 (Tex. Crim. App

. 20 20 ) ( “ The l ack of a valid p redicate offense

. . . amounted t o a substa nti ve defe ct in the charging instrument, not the lack of an indictment altogether. A ppellant did not object to th[e] defect prior to trial, so she cannot complain about it now. ” ) ; see a ls o Teal v. State , 230 S.W. 3d 172, 182 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2007) (unobjected

- to indictment w hich failed to allege of two elements necessary to establis h offense of felony grade never theless served to vest s ubject

- m atter j urisdiction in district court ).34

A person commits the offense of continu ous sexual abuse of a young child if (1) the person , (2) who is seventeen years ol d or older at the time of the
commission of ea ch of the acts , (3) commits a series of t wo or more acts of sexual abuse (4) during a period of thirty or more days, and (5) at the time of the commission of each of the acts the victim is younger than fourteen ye ars old. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 21. 02 (b) ; see also H ines , 551 S.W.3d at 781

– 82

. A s stated above, the indictment in this case alleged t hat appellant,

o n or about September 1, 2007, continuing through October 30, 2010, did then and there unlawfully , duri ng a period o f time of thirt y or more da ys in duration, commit at least two acts of se xual abuse against a child younger than fourteen yea rs of age, incl uding an act constituting the offense of aggravat ed sexual assault of a child, committed against [the complainant] on or about Sept ember 1, 2007, and an act con stituting the offense of sexu al assault of a child, committed against [the com pl ainant] on or about October 30, 2010 , and [appellant] was at least seventeen years of age at the time of the commissio n of each of those acts

. (Emphasis added.) Appella nt argues that the indi ctment f ailed to properly allege one of the acts of sexual abuse because the offen se of “ sexual assault of a child younger than [ fourt een years old ] ” does not exist and “ [t]he jury was forced to deli berate on a [c]ontinuous [sexual abuse of a young chi ld] allegati on th at was not correctly pled. ” And because of all of this, the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. But at trial, appellant did not move for a directed verdict based on th e ar gument h e now raises in his briefing

. Thu s, he has not p reserved for35

appellate review his complaint th at the trial court erred in denying his motion for d irected verd ict

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1 (a) ; Resendiz v. State , 112 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. C rim. App

. 2 003) (holding where defendant ’ s trial objection “ does not comport with” issue he raises on appeal, he has not preserved issue for review) ; Moody v. State , No. 13

- 08

- 00212

- CR, 2009 WL 2605904, at *4 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Chris ti

–

Edinburg Aug. 26, 2009, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. o p., not designated for publication ) (ho lding defendant did not preserve compl aint trial court erred in denying motion for d irected verdict where argument on appeal did not comport to argument made in trial court) ; Burnham v. State , 821 S.W.2 d 1, 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1991, no pet.) (same ) ; se e also White v. State , 458 S.W .3d 188, 191 n.6 (Tex. App.

—

Texarka na 2015, no pet. ) ( considering whether basis for defendant ’ s motion for directed verdict compo rted with point of error raised in appellat e court).
F u rther, to the extent that appellant ’ s firs t issue can be read , not a s a complaint about the trial court ’ s denial of his motion for d irected verdict, but simply as a complaint that the indictment in this case was defective, appellant did not obj ect to a ny defect, error , or irregularity of form or s ubst ance in the indictment before the date that trial on the mer its commen ced. Thus , he waived his right to com plain about the purported defect in the indictment on appeal

. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1.14(b); Jenkins , 592 S.W.3d at 902 ; Dur on v. State , 915 S.W.2d 920, 921

– 22 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 1995 ) ( defendant36

waive d complaint on appeal that indi ctment “ did not allege an offense ” because defendant did not object before date trial b e gan) , aff ’ d , 956 S.W .2d 547 (Tex. Crim. App

. 199 7) ; s ee also William s v. State , 356 S.W .3d 508 , 519 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2011, pet . ref ’ d ) (defend ant did not preserve his argument that indictment did not allege essential elements of offense, where defendant failed to object before trial). Based on the f

orego in g, we hold that appellant has not preserved for appellate re view his complain t about the denial of his motion for directed verdict

or his complain t about the in dictment raised in his first issue. We overrule appellant ’ s first issue.

Adm ission of Evi dence In h is third issue , app ellan t argues that the tr ial court erre d in admitting
V.C. ’ s testimony that appellant “ had touched her on and underneath her underwear whe n she was seven or eight ” years old because the testimony was unreliable and

“ its probati ve va lue was substantially o u twei ghed by a danger o f u nfair prej udice. ” A trial court ’ s ruling on the admission of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. De voe v. State , 354 S.W.3d 457, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Tillman v. State , 354 S.W.3d 42 5, 43 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

. A trial court abuses i ts discreti on if it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Mon tgomery v. State , 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex.37

Crim. App. 1990). A trial court ’ s decision t o adm it evidence will be uphe ld if it is “within the z one of reason able disagreement.” Fowler v. State , 544 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Green v. State , 93 4 S.W.2d 92, 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (internal quotations omitted)

. A trial court ’ s r uling on the admission of extraneous offense evidence is ge nerally within the zone o f reasonable
di sagreement “if the evidence shows that 1) an extraneous transaction is relevant to a material, non

- propensity issue, and 2) the probative value of that evide nce i s not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,

or misleading the jury.” De La Paz v. State , 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We will up hold a trial court ’ s evidentiary ruling if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to that ruling, even if the t rial court gives the wron g reason for the right ruling. Id. “An extraneous offense is any act of misconduct, whether resulting in
prosecu tion or not, which is not shown in the charging instrument and w hich was shown to have been committed by the accused.” Martinez v. State , 190 S.W.3d 254, 262 (Te x. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref ’ d) (internal quotations omitted). Generally, Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits the admission of
extrane ous o ffense evidence to prove a person ’ s character or to sh ow that the person acted in confo rmity with that char acter. See T EX
. R. E VID
. 404(b). But

w hen a defendant is being prosecuted for the offen se of continuous sexual abuse of38

a young child, evidenc e tha t the defendant has committed one or more of the

enumera ted sexual offenses against a chi ld, including the offe nse of indecency with a child, sexual assault of a child, or agg ravat ed sexual assa ult of a child, 31 “may be admitted

. . . for any bearing t he ev idence has on relevant matters, including the character of the defendant and acts perform ed in conformity with the character of the defendant.” T EX
. C ODE OF C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.37, § 2; se e also Jeansonne v. State , 624 S.W.3d 78, 94

– 95 (Tex. App

. — Hou ston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (“Essenti ally, article 3 8.37 is an evidentiary rule applicable to certain types of sexual abuse cases

. . . that supersedes the application of Texas Rule of Evide nce 404(b), and makes admissible certain extraneous offen se

ev idence that [r]ule 404(b) does not.”); Be lcher v. State , 474 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Tex. App.

—

Tyler 2015, no pet.) (article 38.37, section 2(b) a llows admission of evidence that defendant had previous ly committed certain sexual offenses against

non - victims of ch arged offense).
But even if extraneous offense eviden ce is admissible under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.37, a trial cou rt has a nondiscretionary obligation to weigh the probat ive value of the evidence against any unfair prejudice of its

31 See W

ishert v. State , 654 S .W. 3d 317, 330 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2022, pet. ref ’ d ) ( “ Article 38. 37, [s]e ction 2(b) allows for th e admission of evidence that the defendant has committed a separate offense of a sexual nat ure against a child ; the

‘ child victim ’ of th e separat e offense need not be the victim of the offense fo r which the defendant is currently on trial. ” ).39

adm ission when, as here, a defendant obje cts to the admi ssion of extraneous offense evidence based on Texas Rule of Evidence 403. Allen v. State , 01

- 13

- 00784

- CR, 2015 WL 5076288, at *9 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. op ., not designated for publication); Martines v . State , 371 S. W.3d 232, 246

–

47 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). When conducting a rule 403 analysis, a trial court must balance the proba tive force of and the proponent ’ s need for the evidence a gainst (1) any tendency of the evidence to
sug gest a decision o n an improper basis , (2) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the ju ry from the main issues , (3) any tendency of the eviden ce to be given undue weight by a jury that has not been equipp ed to evaluate the probative force of the evidence , and (4) the likelihood that presentation of the evidence will amount to undue delay. Gi gliobianco v. State , 210 S.W.3d 637,
641

– 42 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006); Gorman v. State , No. 01

- 18

- 00316

- CR, 2019 WL 610 739, *5 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Fe b. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A rule 403 analysis favors the admiss ibility of relevant evidence, and a trial court ’ s con clusion that the danger of unfair prejudice does not su bst antially outweigh the evidence ’ s probative va lue is entitled to deference. See Wilson v. State , 473 S.W.3d 889, 900 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. ] 2015, pet. ref ’ d).40

A ppellant complains ab out the admission of V.C. ’ s testimony at trial, asserti ng that it w as unreliable and “ more prej udicial than

. . . pro b ative. ” H ere, we will presu me, for purposes of t h is opinion , that the tri al court erred in admitting
V.C. ’ s testimony, but we must still perform a harm analysis to determine if the trial
court ’ s purpor ted error requires reversal of the tria l court ’ s judgm ent. The erroneous admission of evidence constitutes non

- constitutional error. Coble v. State , 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010 ); Solomon v. State , 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App . 2 001). No n - constitutional error requires

reve rsal only if it affects the substantial rights of the defendant. See T EX
. R

. A PP
. P. 44.2(b); Barshaw v. State , 342 S.W.3d 91, 93

– 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 11). A defendant ’ s substantial rights are affected “wh en the erro r had a substantial and injurious eff

ect or influenc e in determining the jury ’ s verdict.” King v. State , 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We will not overturn a criminal convict ion for non

- constitutional error if, after examining th e r ecord, we have fair assurance that the error did not influen ce the jury or had but a slight effect. Barshaw , 342 S.W.3d at 93

– 94. We review the entire record to determine the effect or influence of the wrongfully admitted evidence on the jury ’ s decisio n. Id. ; Mot ill a v. State , 78 S.W.3d 352, 355

– 56 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2002)

. In asses sing the likeli hood that the jury ’ s decision was improperly influenced, we consider the testimony and physical41

evidence, the nature of the evidence suppo rting the verdict, an d t he charac ter of the alleged error and how it mi ght be considered in connection with other evid ence in
the case. Barshaw , 342 S.W.3d at 94; Motilla , 78 S.W.3d at 355

– 56. The weight of evidence of the defendant ’ s guilt is also relev ant in conducting the ha rm analys is. Neal v. State , 256 S.W.3d 264, 285 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2008) ; see also
Mo tilla , 78 S.W.3d at 355

– 60. And we may cons ider closing statements and voir dire, jury instructions, the State ’ s theory, any defensive theories, and whether the
State e mph asized th e alleged error. Motilla , 78 S.W.3d at 355

– 56; Hankins v.
State , 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005, pet. ref ’ d). Here, the complainant testified in graphic detail about appellant ’ s pattern of sexual abuse. The complainant explained t o t he jury h o w appellant sexually abused him on numerou s occasions and in numerous ways over many years. The
testim ony of the comp lainant alone was sufficient to support appell ant ’ s conviction for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 32 See T E X
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.07 ; Martine s , 371 S.W.3d at 240 ; see a lso Martinez v. State , N o. 10

- 16

- 00397

- CR , 2018 WL 2142742, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 9, 2018,

n o pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holdi ng error in admission of

c omp lai ned

- of ex traneous offense evidence did not affect de fendant ’ s substanti al

32 Although ap pellant was charged with the offense of continu ous sexual abuse of a young child , the jury found appellant gui lty of th e less er - inclu de d offense of ag g ravated sex ual assault of a child. See Price v. State , 413 S.W.3d 158 , 163 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2013 ), af f ’ d , 434 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).42

r ights , wher e complainant “ specifically [ testified ] about the sexual assault s perpetrated by ” defendant). Additionally, al tho ugh appellant complains abo ut the admission of V.C. ’ s
tes tim ony th at appellant “ grabbed ” her vagina once, he does not complain about the admissio n of R.C. ’ s and L.C. ’ s testimony which detailed numerous other
extraneous offenses committed by appellant. R.C., for instance , provide d g raphic details as to the ma ny instances , over many years, of sexual a buse that appellant perpetrated against her, incl uding forcing R.C. to pull down her pants to show her vagina, forcing R.C. and the complainant to engage in sexual intercourse, forcing
R. C. to masturbate appellant , fo rcing R.C . to perform or al sex on appellant , and penetrating R.C. ’ s vagina with his fing ers on multi ple occasions

. And L.C. testified that appellant forced her to expo se h er breasts, vagina, and bottom to him , and that he tou ched her vagina while he wa s m asturbati ng. Further, L.C. testified, without objection, that app ellant had “ touched ” V .C. a s well. See Duncan v. State , 95 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref ’ d ) ( “ Any error in admitting evidence i s cured where the same evid enc e comes i n elsewhere

w ithout objection. ” ).
Eve n though the State , during its closing arg ument , referenced V. C. ’ s testimony, it also referenced t he testimony that the jury heard from the complainant , R. C., and L.C. , about which a ppellant does not complai n. And we43

c annot say that the State overly emphasized V.C. ’ s testimony in its closing
argume nt. See, e.g. , Tipton v. State , No. 10

- 03

- 00385

- CR , 20 05 WL 2 4 1 229, at *2 (Tex. App.

—

Waco Feb. 2, 2005, pet. ref ’ d ) (mem. op., not design ated for publication ) ( holdi ng erro ne ous admiss ion of extra neous offense evidence was harmless even though State referred to extraneous offense in its closing argument )

. F inally , the trial court ’ s instructions to the jury add res s ed and l imited the jury ’ s use and cons ideration of any extraneou s offense evidence admitt ed during the guil t ph ase of trial , which can minimize any harm res ulting from the admission of the complained

- of testimony

. 33 See Tran sue v. State , N o. 02

- 22

- 00155

- CR , 2023 WL 5114302, at *9 (Tex. App.

— Fo rt Worth Aug. 10 , 2023, no pet.) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) ( “ [A]n instruction [in the jury charge]
rega rding extraneous offense evidence can min imize any harm result ing
from

. . . admitting the evidence of the [e xtr aneous] offense. ” ) ; Wishert v. State , 65 4 S.W.3d 3 17, 334 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2022, pet . ref ’ d ) (holding a ny potential harm in admission of extraneous

- off ense evidence was mitigated by tr ial court ’ s limiting instruction in jury charge) ; Martinez , 2018 WL 2142742, at *8 ( holding error in admissio n of c ompl ained

- of extraneous offense evidence did not affect de fendant ’ s substantial r ights , where trial court instructed jury it could only

33 During closing argument, the tri al court al so instructed the jury, “ [ Y]ou will follow th e charge. The charge has t he law in it that you have to follow. What the attorneys tell you at this juncture may or may n ot be the law. You ’ r e bound by what the charge says the law is. ”44

consi der complained

- of extraneous offense evidenc e if jurors believed beyond reasonable doubt that defe ndant commi t ted act)

. W e generally pres ume that the jury followed the limiting instruction of the trial court. See Thrift v. State , 176
S .W.3d 221 , 224 (Tex . Crim. App. 2005). After examining the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the alleged erro neous a dm ission of V.C. ’ s testimony did not influence the jury or had bu t a sli ght effect. Accordingly, we hold that app ellant was not harmed by th e adm ission of V.C. ’ s testimony.
W e overrule appel lan t ’ s third is sue . Conclu si on We af firm the judgment of th e tri a l court.

Julie Countiss Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Adam s and Justices Hight ow e r and Countiss

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b)

.