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

NO. 03-04-00203- CR NO. 03-04-00270- CR

Cr aig Jo nat han W ar ne r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LAMP ASAS COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . 7410 & 7411, H ONO RAB LE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Craig J onathan Warner appea ls from two judg ments after conviction by

a jury of the offe nses of a g g ravated sexual assault of a c hild under 14. See Tex. Pen. Code An n . § 2 2
. 0 2 1 (a) (We st Su pp . 2 00 4- 05 ). Th e se c a

us e s invo lvi nga lle g e d a c ts o n th e same da y a g a ins t tw o s e pa

rate children w ere tried tog ether by ag ree ment of the par

ties. The jury

assessed punishment at 99 y ear s in prison and a $10,000 f

ine, the sente nces to run c oncurr ently . I n a sing le issue on appe al, appe llant challeng es the c harg e to the jury on the g round that it permitted the jury to co n v i ct o n l ess than a
unan im o u s v e r d ic t. B e c a u s e a p p e ll an t f a il e d to s e e k ane le c ti o nan d

o th e r w is e f a il e d to p r e s e rve
err or and the re w as no eg reg ious harm so as to depr ive appe llant of a fa ir an d i m p artial trial, we aff irm the judg ments of conviction.At the time of trial in J anuar y 2004, both gir ls were nine y ear s old. 1 2

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Ap pe lla nt a nd Ste ph anie War

ne r w ere mar ri e d in

19 99 and

liv e d in Ke mpn e r i n L ampasa s County

with an eig ht-y ear -old daug hter, M.J., and a son, both of whom wer e born of a prior re lationship of Mrs. Warner’ s, and a da ug hter born of

this marria g e. On the eveningof Mar ch 22, 2003, Y.R., the daug hter of Mr s. Warn er ’s co u s i n , came to spend the nig ht with M.J . at the War ne r h ome . Af

te r t he fa mil y had co ok e d d inn e r o utd oo rs , th e tw o g ir ls a sk e d M rs . Warn e r i f 1 ap p el l an t“c o u l d

s l ee p wi t h t h em i n t h e p l ay ro o m ” wh er e t h ey we re s p en d i n g t h e n i gh t
. Al t h o u gh Mrs. Warner

thought it was a n u n u s u al re q uest, she ag ree d to it. Appellant went to the play room wi th t he g ir ls t o w a tc h te le vis ion and the re st o f t

he fa mil y we nt to the ir

re sp e c tiv e ro oms . M rs . Warner se wed in her room until she we nt to sleep. She was a wake ned at midnig ht by

laug hter fr om the play room and we nt to chec k on the g irls. She found the door locke d. Upon unlocking the door and viewingappellant a

nd the g irls laying ne x t to one another , Mrs. Warner questioned why the door was locke d. Although she rec alled some une ase be cause the three wer e play ing a nd Y.R. appea

red to be spankingappellant, she returne d to her room a nd fell aslee p. L ater that day , as Mrs. Warner helped M.J
. g et dresse d, she observe d an unusual dark smudge on M.J .’s pajama s. When asked about the s tain, M.J . responde d that it was “fr om pushing D a d dy . ” M r s . W a

r n e r t h e na s k e d

w h e the r a

p p e l l an tw a s t i c k l i n g o r

w r e s t l i n g w i t h h e r . M
. J.
re sp on de d, “ No , I wa s pu sh ing Da dd y of f of [Y. R.]. ” Mr s. War

ne r t he n te sti fi e d th a t M. J. g ot “ re a lly quiet on me, and she looked awa y ,” and w orried that Mrs. Warner w as g oing to g et mad at her. When Mrs. Warner a ssured he r that she would not, M.J. t old he r that appellant touched Y.R. “down there ,” and pointed “ down.”3 Mrs. Warner

aler ted Y.R.’s mother a

nd too k b o t h chil dren to Metr oplex Hospi tal wher e she a

nd the childre n wer e re fer red to Scott & W hite Hospital for a full medical a

nd sexual assault examination conducted by Dr. P am el a Gr een, a phy sician in obstetrics and g y necolog y at Sc ott & Whit e . A t t ri al, Dr. Green o pin e d th a t th e re ha d b e e n p e ne tr a tio n at le a st o f t he fe ma le sexual orga

n “past the oute r lips,” if not o f t he vag ina, of both g irls. She testified conce rning the ph y sic a l e vid e nc e a s w ell a s th e inf or matio n p ro vid e d b y

the g ir ls r e fl e c tin g the se xua l a c ts
c omm itt e d o n th e g ir ls.

On April 17, 2003, the Stat e i n d i ct ed appe llant in two separate indictments for the
o ff en s es of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild under 14. The jur y returne d a g ener al ver dict of g uil ty in b oth c a us e s.
AN AL YSI S I n appellant’ s sole issue prese nted, he c ontends that the trial court err ed by submitt ing a cha rg e that per

mitted the jury

to convict on less than a una nimous verdict. Tex. Const. art. V, § 13; Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn . ar t. 36.29(a) ( West S upp. 2004-05). He argues that the trial c ourt
a llo we d th e jur

y ’s g e ne ra l ve rd ic t to be ba se d on mul tip le , dis tin c t of fe ns e s thu s invit ingthe jur y to convict on any one of the t hree offe nses i n the cha rg ing pa rag raphs. Se e Fran c is v . S tate , 36 S.W .3d 12 1, 12 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Vick v . S tate , 991 S.W .2d 83 0 , 8 3 3 (T ex. C rim. App. 1999); Kitc he ns v . S

tate , 823 S.W .2d 256, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), cert. de nied , 504 U.S. 958 (1992). The indictments wer e identica l as to both children and, in a single count cha

rg ing ag g ravated sexual a ssault, c ontained three para g raphs alleg ing that appellant, on or about Mar ch 23, 2003,4

did the n a nd the re int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly caus e the pe ne tr a tio n o f t he fe ma le sexual orga

n of [named child], a child y oung er than 14 y ear s of ag e who wa s not the spouse of said de fenda

nt by inserting defe ndant’s fing er, Parag raph Tw o: did then and there intentionally or knowing ly

cause the sexual org an of [name d c hil d] a

c hil d y oung e r t

ha n 1 4 y e ars of

a g e wh o w a s n ot t

he sp ou se of

sa id de fe nd ant t o c onta c t th e mouth o f d e fe nd ant, Parag raph Thr ee: d i d t h en and ther e intentionally or knowing ly

cause the anus of [name d c hil d], a

c hil d y oung e r t

ha n 1 4 y e ars of

a g e wh o w a s n ot t

he sp ou se of

sa id de fe nd ant t o c onta c t th e se xua l or g an o f t he de fe nd ant. Appellant plea ded not g uilt y i n b o t h cause s. The par ties ag ree d to try

the ca uses toge ther. At trial, the State pr esente d testimony from the following witnesses: Stephanie Warne r,
a pp e lla nt’ s w if e wh o o bs e rv e d appe lla

nt a nd the c hil dr e n in

the pla y ro om a nd re c e ive d th e fi rs t outcry ; Sandra Riley , Y.R.’s mother; Dr. Pame la Gre en, the doc tor who per formed the medical a nd
se xua l a ssa

ult e xami natio n at Sc ott

& Whit e ; A my

Pe nny , a for e ns ic int e rv ie we r w iththe Hi ll County Chi ldr e n’ s A dv oc a c y

Ce nte r i n Burn e t who c on du c te d the vid e ota pe d inte rv ie ws of

the g ir ls; David Whitis , a ser g eant investig ator with the L ampasa s Sheriff’ s Office, wh o investigated the
se xua l a ssa

ult a lle g a tio ns ; B re nt Watso n, a c ri min a lis t f

or the Te xas D epar tm ent of Pu bli c Sa fe ty crime la boratory in Waco, who examined the evidenc e re cover ed from the g irls, and testified, among other thing s, to finding se men in a sample obta ined from Y.R.; B lake Goe rtz, the DNA sec tion
s u p e r v i s o r w i t h t h e D P S W a c o c r i m e l a b ; an d th e t w o g i r l s , Y
. R
. an d

M
. J. The de fense prese nted the testimony o f t h re e wi tnesses: Stephanie Warne r, who testified about M
. J
. ’s t est imony that the abuse had occ urre d since M.J. was in kinderg arte n and wh e the r a pp e lla nt w a s in fa c t a br oa d in the mil ita

ry a t the tim e that epi so de of a bu se wa s a lle g e d to have oc curr ed; appe llant’s ex-wife who testified t hat appellant had been alone with y oung g irls when they wer e marrie d and no one had eve r complaine d; and a f amily phy sician, who ha d conducte d a5

se me n a na ly sis on a pp e lla nt a nd te sti fi e d that the se min a l f lui d f ound in Y .R. wa s in c on sis te nt w ith
a pp e lla nt’ s. Appellant did not object to the charg e nor did he subm it a propose d instruction. At the c ha rg e c on fe re nc e , a

pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l c ouns e l st a te d h e ha d no ob je c tio n to the c ha

rg e . In r e sp on se to the court’s inquiry

whether counsel ha d taken a “look” at the cha rg e, the State r esponded, “ Ithink [appellant’s counsel] wants the fa ilure to testify in there.” The c harg e included instruc tions
c on c e rn ingre a so na

b l e d o ub t and

a un anim ou s v e rd ic t w hic h a re no t se pa

ra te ly c ha lle ng e d o n a

pp e a l. The trial c ourt’s cha

rg e to the jury

rea d, in pertinent par

t
Our lawprovides that a pe rson commits the offe nse of a g g ravated sexual a ssa ult of a c hil d if he int e nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

c a us e s p e ne tr a tio n o f t

he fe ma le se xua l or g an b y

any me ans or c a us e s th e anu s o f a

c hil d und e r 1 4 y ears of a g e to c on ta c t th e se xua l or g an o f a no the r p e rs on ; or

c a us e s the sex ual or g an o f a c hil d under 14 y ear s of ag e to contact the mouth of another person, includingthe ac tor and the child is not the spouse of the pe rson committing the of fense
.

. . . . Now if y ou find from the e vidence bey ond a re asonable doubt that on or about the 23 rd da y of Marc h, 20 03 in L a mpa sa s Co un ty , Te xas t he de fe nd ant, Cr a ig J onathan W arne r, di d then and there intentionally or knowingly cause the pene tration of the fe male sexual org an of [Y.R.], a child y oung er than 14 y ear s of age , who was not the spouse of said de fenda nt by inserting defe ndant’s fing er or cause the sexual or g an o f [Y .R. ] to c on ta c t th e de fe nd ant’ s mo uth , or did the n a nd the re int e nti on a lly or kn owi ngly

c a us e the a nu s o f [Y .R. ] wh o w a s n ot t he sp ou se of

the de fe nd ant t o contac t the sexual orga

n of the de fenda

nt, then y ou will find the defe ndant g uilty of ag g ravated sexual assault and so say by y our verdict, but if y ou do not so believe, or if y ou have a re a so na ble do ub t the re of

, y ou wi ll a c qu it the de fe nd ant o f t he of fe ns e of ag g ravated sexual assault and say by y our ver dict “Not Guilty ” of sa id offense
. A ni d e n t i c a l p ar a g r a

p h w a s i n c l u d e d

w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e o t h e r

c a u s e an d M
. J. Tw o s e pa rate ve rd ic t f

or ms r e latin g to v ic tim s Y .R. and M. J. re fe re nc e d th e sin g le of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult . T he jur

y re tur ne d a ve rd ic t f ind inga pp e lla nt guil ty in b oth c a us e s.6 O u r d i s p o s i t i o no f

t h i s p o i n ti s c o n t r o l l e d

b y Ngo v . S

tate , No. PD- 0 5 0 4 -0 4 , 2 005 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 457, at *11-13 (Te x . Crim. App. March 16, 2005) ; Fran c is , 36 S.W .3d at 125 and Vick, 9 91 S.W. 2d a t 83 3. We a

re ini tia lly

g uid e d in our a na ly sis by the c ourt ’s op ini on

in Fran c is . I n Fran c is , the defendant was char g ed with a si ng le count of inde cenc y with a child. Id
. at 122. The State introduc ed evide nce of four a cts of indec ency , but e lected to proce ed on only two of those ac ts. “Throug ho u t t h e t ri al , appellant a sked the trial c ourt to require the State to elec t betwee n the two diffe rent a cts of i n d ec ency , but the trial court de nied these r equests.” Id . At the close of the State’s evidenc e, appe llant ag ain re quested that the tria l court re quire the State to e lect be tw e e n the tw o a c ts. Ap pe lla nt argue d that if

the State wa s n ot l imi te d to on e a c t, t he jur y c ou ld come to a non- unanimous verdict, with some juror s believing he committed o ne ac t while other believed he committed the second a ct. The tria l court over ruled a ppellant’s objec tions. Id . The trial court a lso denied appe llant’s reque sted cha rg e that wo u l d h av e re quired the State to prove that appellant c ommitt ed both alleg ed ac ts of indece ncy . Id
.

On appe al, the court of c riminal appea ls gr anted a ppellant’s petition for discr etionary revie w to consider w hether “the c ourt of appeal s err ed in holding that the char g e submitted to the jury allowing a convic tion on less tha n a u n an i m o u s verdict wa s not error .” Id . T he c ourt fi rs t considere d whether

err or had be en pre serve d: Considering appellant’ s objection to the char g e, his repe ated attempts to require the State to e le c t, a

nd the un iqu e natur e of the ind ic tme nt and the inc ide nts a lle g e d in

thi s ca s e, ap p el l an t ’s o b

j ec t i o n t o t h e j u ry

ch ar ge w as s u ff

i ci en tt o ap p ri s e t h e t ri al j u d ge of the potential c harg e er

ror.
Id . at 123. The c ourt held that appe llant properly prese rved the err or for appellate revie w and that
err or exis ted in the jury char g e. The court then rema nded the cause for a har

m analy sis. Id . at 125.The pe n al co de provide s that a per son commits agg ravated sexual assault when, among 2 other wa y s, the person ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r kn o w i n g l y: (i ) c a us e s the pe ne tr a tio n of the anu s o r s e xua l or g an o f a c hil d b y any me ans ; (ii) cause s the penetr ation of the mouth of a c hild by the sexual org an of the actor ; (i ii) c a us e s the se xua l org an of a ch ild to co nta c t or pe ne tr a te the mouth, anu s, or sexual org an of a

nother pe rson, including the ac tor; (iv) cause s the anus of a

child to co n t ac t the mouth, anus, or sexual org an of another person, includingthe ac tor; or (v) cause s the mouth of

a child to contac t the anus or se x ual org an of a nother person, includingthe ac tor; and (2) if: (B ) the victim is y oung er tha n 14 y ear s of ag e . . . . Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.021( a) ( West S upp. 2004-2005). 7 L ikewise, he re the S tate cha rg ed thre e diffe rent violations of the same offe nse in a single count containing three para g raphs. B eca use the State a ffirmatively decide d to seek only

one conviction, the jury

char g e conta ined er

ror. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a); Vick, 991 S.W .2d 2

a t 83 4. F ind inge rr or , w e mus t ana ly ze t hat e rr or fo r h arm . Even if we assume there was err or, we must determine whe ther a ny err or wa s harmful enoug h to r equire reve rsal. Se e Ab dn or v . S tate , 871 S.W .2d 726, 731-32 (Te x . Crim. App. 1994). Whe n d e fe ns e c ouns e l doe s not o bje c t to a jur y c ha rg e , e rr or , if

any , d oe s n ot r e qu ir e re ve rs a l un le ss it wa s so eg reg ious a

nd cre ated suc h harm that a ppellant was de nied a f

air trial. Al

ma nz a v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). T h e d egr ee of harm r equire d for r ever sal turns on8

whether appellant pr eser

ved er ror in the tria l court. Abdnor , 871 S.W .2d at 732. An appe llant who timely objects t o the charg e preserve s err or for revie w, and r ever sal is require d only on the finding of “some ha

rm.” Id
. Her e, appe llant ag ree d to try the causes t og ether

in a sing le trial. Appe llant made no ob je c tio n to the c ourt ’s c ha rg e no r d id h e su

bmi t a c ha rg e or any re qu e ste d la

ngua g e . N or

did
a pp e lla nt e ve r m ov e fo r o r o the rw ise se e k a n e le c tio n re qu ir ing the State to e le c t wh ic h a c t it w ou ld rely on for c onviction. Thus, a ppellant failed to pr eser

ve er ror. Fran c is , 3 6 S. W.3 d at 12 4; O’Neal

v . S tat e , 746 S.W .2d 769, 771 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

There is a split of authority among our sister cour

ts reg ardingthe har

m analy sis to be used in eva luating jur

y char g e er ror implicating jury

unanimity

issues. Com

pa re Ph ill ips v . S

tate , 130 S.W .3d 343, 352 (T ex . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2004, pet. re f’d) with Cat es v . S tate , 72 S.W .3d 681, 696-97 (Te x . App.—Tyler 2001, no pe t.) an d W ils on v . S tate , 3 S. W. 3 d

2 2 3 , 2 2 6 ( T e x. App.—Waco 1999, pet. r ef’ d). Until this is sue is resolved by the cour t of criminal appe als, we a re g uided by

the cour t’s opinion in Ngo observingthat jury unanimity

is one of the pur

poses of
re qu ir ingthe State to m a ke an e le c tio n a nd is r e qu ir e d b y

the Te xas Co ns ti tu ti on in f e lony c a se s. 2005 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 457, at *14, *23. We therefor e apply the constitutional error

standard of re view. I f there is a rea sonable lik el i h o o d t h at the er ror mate rially

aff ecte d the jury ’s deliberat i o n s , t h en , the er ror is not harmless be y ond a re asonable doubt. W esb ro ok v . S tate , 29 S.W .3d 103, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), cert. de nied , 53 2 U.S
. 944 ( 20 01 ). Whil e the mos t signific ant conc ern must be the e rror and its eff

ects, the pr esenc e of

overw helming e vidence supporting the finding in question can be a fa ctor in the e valuation of ha rmless err or. Id
.9 To assess the de g ree of har m , we e x amine the e ntire jury char g e, the state of the evid e n c e , in c lu d in g th e c o n te s te d is s u e s an d w e ig h t o f th e p r o b a ti v e e v id e n c e , th e ar g u me n ts of counsel, a nd any other re levant information revea led by the re cord of

the trial as a

whole. Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171. W e examine the re levant portions of the e ntire re cord to de termine whe ther appellant suffe red any actua l, r ather than theore tical, harm as a re sult of the err or. Ar lin e v . S tate , 721 S.W .2d 348, 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Error s that re s u l t i n eg reg ious harm ar e those that
a ff e c t “ the ve ry

ba sis of the c a se ,” “ de pr ive the de fe nd ant o f a va lua ble ri g ht, ” or

“ vit a lly a ff e c t a defe nsive theory .” Hu tc h v . S tate , 9 2 2 S
. W
. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Al ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 172). I t is the appellant’s burde n to prove that he suffe red some actua l, rathe r than
mere ly theore tical, harm fr o m the er ror. Di c k e yv . S tate , 22 S.W .3d 490, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Arline , 721 S.W .2d at 351).

Examin ingthe se fa c tor s, we c on clu de th at a pp e lla nt h a s n ot c arr ie d h is b ur de n to prove that he s uffe red actual, rather than theore tical, harm from the error . As an initial matter, we may not second-guess appe ll an t ’s strateg y in try ing the se ca

uses tog ether

and in dec lining to see k
an e le c tio n b y

the State
. Pe rh a

ps he re c og nize d th a t th e re pe a te d c omm iss ion of the same of

fe ns e
or violations of multipl e subsections of section 22.021(a ) may be tried in a

single criminal ac tion and punished by

consec utive sentenc es. See , e.g. , P a t t e r s o n v . Sta te , 152 S. W.3 d 8 8, 91 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004). The State’s fa ilure to make a n elec tion also enhanc es a n ac cu s ed’s double je opardy protec tions. I f the State doe s not make an e lection, it is barre d from prose cuting in the future a ny offe nse within the scope of the indictment and for

which evide nce wa s introduced at trial. See Ro dr igu e z v . S tate , 10 4 S.W. 3d 87 , 9 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Ex parte Goodbre ad , 967 S.W .2dO u r an a l ys i s o f

t h e e l e c t i o nr e qu i r e m e n ti s c o n t r o l l e d b y O’ Ne al v . S tate , 746 S.W .2d 769, 3 771-73 (Te x . Crim. App. 1988). 10 85 9, 86 0- 61 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ). Th e e rr or th eref or e be ne fi tte d a

pp e lla nt b y pr ote c tin g him ag ainst future pr osecutions. Se e Ca mpb ell v. Sta te , 149 S.W .3d 149, 156-157 (Te x . Crim. App. 2004) (Ke ller, J., concurring ) (e x plaining inter play betwee n double jeopar dy and election). I n the prese nt c ase, appellant was exposed to a single count in both c auses r ather than multiple counts and
consec utive sentenc es. That appellant’ s counsel understood this be nefit is r efle cted by the fac t that he filed a motion to quash a s econd count in the indictments that charg ed indec ency with a child. He a rg ued that it was the same criminal conduct char g ed in two differ ent counts and wa s a violation of the double je opardy clause
. The motion wa s defe rre d until trial and the count was abandone d by t h e S t at e at t h e cl o s e o f

i t s c a s e . C i t i n g Patterson , th e State a g re e d th e ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d offe nse wa s subsumed within the charg e of a g g ravated sexual assault. See Patterson , 152 S.W .3d at 91. This is not a case in which appe llant complains of the trial c ourt’s denia l of a motion to e le c t. See , e.g. , W

ils on v . S tate , N o . 1 1

- 0 3

- 0 0 2 8 2

- CR , 2 0 0 5 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 5 6 2 3 , a t * 1 1 ( T e x. 3 App.—E as t l an d J uly

21, 2005, no pet.); Di

x on v . S tate , No. 14-03-01259- CR, 2005 Tex . App. L E X I S 5 6 0 9 , a t* 5 ( T e x. A p p . — H o u s t o n[1 4 t h D i s t
. ] J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t
. ) ; Fa rr v . S tate , 140 S.W. 3d 89 5, 90 0 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14th Di st. ] 20 04 , pe t. g ra nte d) ; Phillips , 130 S.W .3d at 349; Gu tie rre z v . S tate , 8 S.W. 3d

73 9, 74 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; W

ilson , 3 S.W .3d at 225;

se e als o F

ra nc is , 36 S.W .3d at 122. The S tate may prese nt evidence of the a cts cha rg ed or that the char g ed ac ts occur red on mult iple occa sions. Se e W or le yv . S tate , 8 7 0 S. W. 2 d

6 2 0 , 6 2 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Di st. ] 1 99 4, pe t. re f’ d)
. Up on the tim e ly mot ion by the de fe nd ant, the State is11

require d to ma

ke an elec tion of those acts upon which it will rely to pur sue a conviction. O’Neal , 746 S.W .2d at 771 n.3. Absent such a motion by the def endant, the State is not re quired to make an elec tion. Id .; Cra wfo rd

v . S tate , 6 96 S.W. 2d

90 3, 90 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 85 ). Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that appellant’ s counsel conside red a nd then re jected a reque st for an e lection. Her e, appe llant failed to aler t the trial court to his unanimous jury verdic t claim. He did not request a severa

nce of any char g es; he doe s not dispute the State’s asser tion that he soug ht to try the t wo causes t og ether
. He failed t o object to any statements by the prosecution and the trial
c ourt duri ng vo ir dir e or op e nin g argume nt t hat mi g ht r e late to h is c la im n ow . N or did he ob je c t to the closing argument of the State followingthe re ading of the court’s charg e in which the pr osecutor urg ed
Para g ra

phon e te lls y ou

that th is as sa

ult , th is t y pe of a ssa ult c an b e c omm itt e d in three differ ent way s, and they ’re listed there. And they are co-joined by a disjunctive wo rd “ or ” wh ic h me ans that y ou may fi nd fr om t

he e vid e nc e be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t th a t on e of

tho se wa y s w a s p ro ve d to y our s a tis fa c ti on bey on d a re a so na ble doubt. You may

find that two of them, two of the three , y ou may find that all three wer e substantiated by

the testimony

and/or medic al evidenc e and the work-up by the la b. Yo u ma

y fi nd a ll thr e e of

the m th e re , b ut you

on ly ne e d to fin d o ne in o rd e r t o find the def

endant guilty

of the off ense of ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild.
I mport an tl y , th e St a te in tr o d u c e d e v id e n c e s u

p p o rti n g th e thr e e p ar a g r a p h s and appellant doe s not challeng e the suff iciency of that evide nce. See Kitche ns , 823 S
. W
. 2 d at 259. M.J ., appellant’ s stepdaug hter, a nd Y.R. both testified at t rial. M.J . testified over no objection that appellant ha d touched he r “in a bad way” from the time she was in kinder g arte n, when she was five
or six- y e ars -o ld. She te sti fi e d th a t on the late nig ht o f Ma

rc h 22 , a pp e lla nt “ ra pe d” the tw o g ir ls i n the play room. She ac knowledg ed on cr oss examination t hat she ha d lear ned the wor d from her12

mother and that to her it mea nt that he touched her “in very bad spots.” That night, he touche d her “pee -pee ” with hi s “private part”; ear lier i n the evening he had touche d her w ith his “private,” f inge r, and tong ue. Y. R. a lso te sti fi e d that whil e the y we re in the pla y ro om ove rn ig ht a

pp e lla nt p ut h is “virg ina,” which she also ref err ed to a s his private par t, “in mine” and “ in my

bottom” as she wa s laying on his sto ma c h. Ea rl ie r that eve nin g he tou c he d h e r “ vir g ina ” wi th h is m ou th whic h s he a lso observe d him do on M.J
. She testified t hat l ater that morning he pushed his “pr ivate par t” into her “virg ina.” B oth gir ls were also videotape d by the fore nsic interviewe r and the videotapes w ere introduced into evide nce.

Dr. Gr een e x amined the two g irls and testified conc erningthe phy sical evide nce she observe d duri ng the medica l and sexual assault examination. S he opined that ther e had be en pe ne tr a tio n at le a st of the fe ma le se xua l or g an “ pa st the ou te r lip s, ” if no t of the va g ina , of bo th g ir ls. Dr. Gr een a lso testified that as par t of her medical history , M.J
. told he r that appellant had done ba d things to her

since kinder g arte n, including “ putting his fing er in he r pee -pee ” and his tongue in her
mouth. At

the ho sp ita l, M .J. to ld D r. Gr e e n: “ He did it w ithus , me fi rs t. H is w ie ne r t ou c he d my pe e - p e e an d

my b u tt
. H is mo u th

to u c h e d my p e e - p e e . ” Y
. R. to ld

D r . G r e e n , an d

G r e e nr ecor ded in her for ensic e x amination repor t, that appellant’ s penis touched her “virgina ” and a lso M.J .’s, that app ell ant t ou c he d h e r “ bo ob ie s” wi th h is h and s, and that he “ F re nc h k iss e d my mouth a nd my vag ina.” Gre en then rec orded that Y.R. told he r: “He put his penis in my butt. Itold him t o stop bu t he sa id i t w a s too ha

rd fo r him to sto p. He did it a g a in i n th e mor nin g . . . . He tol d u s to lic k it or kiss it (his penis). Me & [M.J .] said ‘no.’” None of the de fense witnesses testified a s to the
e ve nts that tr ans pir e d— or that th e y did no t—w iththe g ir ls.13 I n his closing a

rg ument, appellant’ s counsel ar g ued that the inconsisten ci es in the g irls’ statements, the videota ped stateme nts, and testimony could not be re conciled a nd that “it never happene d.” View ing the indictment, e vidence , and char g e in its entirety , it is evident that the jury simply did not be lieve the de fense case . Had the jur y cre dited the def

ense w itnesses or disbelieve d the y o u n g g ir ls , it

w o u ld h a v e a c qu itte d

h im
. Wi th

y o u n g c h il dr e nw h o s tr

u g g le e v e nw it

h the
vo c a bu lary of wh a t h as tr ans pire d, the de fe nd ant h a s n ot s uf fe re d a c tua l ha

rm wh e n h e fa ils to
c ha lle ng e tha

t f ro m w hic h h e may

argua bly have so ught b e ne fi t. Ba sed on the state of the rec ord, appellant has not c arr ied his bur den to showthat he
su ff e re d a c tua l and

no t th e or e tic a l ha

rm fr om a ny e rr or . The ha

rm e sp ou se d b y

a pp e lla nt i s me re ly the or e tic a l and

no t su pp or te d b y the re c or d. We c on c lud e that app ell ant w a s n ot “ e g re g iou sly ha rm e d” by any e rr or in the c ha

rg e be c a us e the jur

y c ou ld have g ive n e ff

e c t to a pp e lla nt’ s d e fe ns e theory and ac quitted him under the instructions g iven, and the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support the alleg ations. Cf. Go nz ale

z v . S tate , 8 S.W .3d 640, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (g ener al substantive constitutional rule is that “a g ener al ver dict [i s] valid so long as it [ is] leg ally supportable on one of the submitted gr ounds—eve n t houg h that [gives] no assuranc e that a va lid gr ound, rathe r than a n invalid one, [is] actua lly

the basis for the jury ’s ac tion.”). Gi v en t h e n at u re o f t h e a l l ega t i o n s i nt h e i n d i ct m en t , t h e p ro o f a tt ri al , an d t h e c h ar ge and jury ar g u me n t a

b o u t th e c h ar g e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a p p e ll an t w a s n o t d e p r iv e d o f a f a ir and imp art ia l tr ia l.14 CO NC LU SION Acc ording ly , we conclude that a ny err or did not rise to the leve l of eg reg ious harm so as to deprive appellant of a fa ir and impartial tria l. Over ruling appellant’ s sole issue prese nted,
we a ffirm the judg ments of conviction.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: September

22, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh