1 E . G. ’s ag e a t t he t ime o f t he o ffen se is u nc er t ain . At t he t ime of trial in June 2000, sh

e was tenyears old and ha d just co mplet ed fifth g ra de. The re was no e vidence of a par t icular dat e fo r t he off en se; the i ndi ctmen t reci ted tha t it occurred on

or about F ebruary

1, 1998. E.G. t es t ified t ha t it occurred sometim

e when she was in second, or possibl

y thi rd, grade. 2 Other than the occur

rence of the a ssaul

t, t he biggest diff

erence ap pellan

t had w ith E.G. ’s t est imony ab out the eve

nts wa s h er rec ol l ec ti on of

a teleph one on the ki

tchen tabl e; app ellant s aid t he ph o ne wa s in t he living r o o m. 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00497-CR Bobby Garc

ia, Appel lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRI CT COUR T OF TR AVIS CO UNTY, 1 67TH JUD ICIAL D ISTRICT, NO. 0991372, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING
A jury co nvicte d Bo bby Garc ia of t he aggra va ted sexua l ass aul t of E.G., hi s ni

ece. 1 The d i str i ct c our t as se ss ed pu n i sh men t at te n -a n d- a- h al f yea rsi n pri son . We af

f i rm th e j udgm

en t. BACKGROUND E.G. an d a ppe l l an t tol d nea rl y i de nti cal ve rs i ons of t he eve nt s su rr ou nding th e a ss aul t. They essen tial ly div erge only where E.G. cla

im s the assaul

t o ccurred

an d a pp el l an t den i es i t. 2 E.G.2

was st aying ove rnight with a ppel la nt; no one else was at

the house that night. When appella nt asked wh ereE.G. wanted to sl eep, she el ected to sl eep i

n hi s bed. Appel

la nt testifi ed that he went to sleep and next re members w aking u p ar ou nd 7 o r 7 :3 0 a. m. t o find E .G . w at ching t elevision; s he sa id she could not sl

eep. H e poured

a b owl of c erea l f or her a nd th ey wen t on wi th the i r day . E.G .’s t es t imo ny ad de d d et ails ab o ut t he o ffen se . Sh e s aid she c hos e t o s leep in t he bed because it was m ore comfortabl e, not knowing appel la nt was goi ng to sl ee p there , too. Sh e s aid t ha t she t ho ug ht ap pe llant ha d fa llen a sle ep , bu t t he n he pu t his h an d u nd er he rpa nt ies . He pu t his f i nge rs in to her vagi

na an d move d them, produci

ng a “ watery” sound. He was

breathi ng a l i ttl e ha rder, “kind

of panting”; af

ter abo ut a min

ute, he stopp ed. E. G. said he n ever opened his ey

es. She gotup, went to the bathroom, then went t o t he kitche

n f or t he rest of the n

igh t. She thought about calling her mo t he r , bu t did no t kn o w w he r e t o ca ll. E.G . sa i d s he f el t uncom f ortab l e. S he

di d n ot say an y thi ng to ap pel l an t about i t the nex t morn i ng b eca use she was sca red. The p ar ti es h ad si m i l ar , a ddi ti on al di screpa n ci es re ga rdi n g a n oth er i n ci den t t ha t occurred about a year l ater. E. G. was st aying with a ppe llantand h is girl fri end, Roxan

a. E.G. was upsetwhen

they did n ot take her to a chil

dr en ’sre sta

urant and am

usem ent center becaus e i

t was about t o c lose for t he night . Ar ou nd 11 p. m., aft er a minor disag re ement wit h app ellant, Ro xana went to b ed. Appe l l an

t an d E.G . ke pt wa tch i ng tel ev i si on. E.G . testi f

i ed tha t sh e w assi tti ng on appellant’s l eg

on a ch air an d w at ch ing “S at ur da y Nig ht Live ” ( “S NL ”) ; a pp ella nt did no t r ec all sitt ingon a chair t hat night . Ap pellant awa kene d Ro xana hal f an hour later, say

in g that E.G. was cr ying and i nconsolabl

e. Appel la nt and Roxan

a testif ie d that E.G. was upset because she wan ted her mother and they could n ot reach h er. In E.G.’s versi

on, after Roxana l

eft, appella

nt was asl eep and3

bre at hinghar d, but kep t put t ing his handon to p of her j eans;she s ai d he got close to between her legs, but she kept

moving his hand away , about t wo or three tim es. She sai

d appella nt never opened his ey es. Wh en sh e got up and sat o n the couch, appel la nt got up and w ent to bed i n hi s room. E.G. sa id appella nt appeared tired, but not particula rly happy , sad, or mad. Ro xana a gr eed t hat app ellant was tired, but also sa id

he wa s fr us t r at ed be ca us e h e c o uld no t ge t E . G. t o st o p c rying . Ro xa na sa id she had m ore suc ces s ca

l m i ng th e ch i l d. E.G., however, said sh e crie d a bi

t afterappella

nt lef t, but that no one

cam e to see a bout her. E. G. said she st ayed u p all night . C ar ol, E. G. ’s mot her and appellant’s si ster, t estif

ie d E.G. was cryi

ng when sh

e pi cked her

up t he next mor ning, bu t she seem ed fi ne; E.G. said she m

is sed her m

ot her. Carol sa

id a ppel la nt and Roxan

a told her that E.G. had thrown a fit t he ni ght bef ore, demandi

ng to be taken hom

e, bu t no o ne kn ew wh er e t o r ea ch he r . Ca r o l sa id E.G.’s beha

vior, co mbin

ed wi th Roxana an

d appella nt’s story, struck her as odd. These in ci dents cam

e to ligh t in Sept em

ber 1999 when

E.G. did not want to stay ove rnight wi

th appe l l an t. He, R oxan a, E.G., C arol , and Bar

ba ra (Ca rol a nd a ppel l an t’s m other) were re tur n i n g f rom a f un eral i n McA l l en . A f

ter th e l ong d ri v e, th ey wen t to Carol’s

boyf rien d’s h ouse. Ro xana and appel

la n t o ff ered to wat ch E.G . if Carol wanted to spend t he night at her boyfriend’s house. E. G. go t ups et , sa id t hat she did no t want to stay wi th appella nt, and i nsisted that Caro l take her home . Carol testif

ie d that, o n the way

home , she asked E.G. what waswrong, and E.G. to ld h er about the “SNLincident .” In Ca ro l’s ver sion t her e we re so me different details. She sai d that E.G. tol d her app ellant sl am

me d the door on hi s way

in to the bedroom. Carol al

so said tha

t E.G. to ld h

er that after a whi

le , she wen

t and slept in

the bed wi

th appella nt and Roxan

a, but als o t hat

she stayed awake al l n igh t cryi ng.4 Ca rol testifi ed that sh e w as

n ot s ur e w

h at to d o af ter th i s r ep ort. S h e s ai

d th at, bec au se of the vo latile natu re o f her relationship with her fam il y, she hesi

tat ed t o r epo rt E.G .’s o ut cr y; she d id no t t hi

nk Ba rb ara w oul

d b el i ev e E .G . C arol

se n t E.G . to In

di an ap oli s to l i

v e wi th E.G .’s father, h

is wif e, and t heir t hre e childr en. She d id so even t hou gh E .G . ha d neve r met him and he had b eaten Carol wh

en they were toget her; C arol sai

d she b elie

ved that he h

ad not abused hi

s new f am i l y an d th at E .G . w oul

d b e b ette r of f l i v i n g w i th h er f ath er i n a r el ati v el y sta b l e en v i ron men t. Af ter E.G. was with h

er father, Carol reported the abuse to Chi ld Protective Serv

ic es (“CPS”). W

hi l e C PS tri ed

to i nterview E.G. from Indi anapolis , Detective John

ny McMi ll er, an Au st in po lice man , ca lled ap pe llant , wh o ha d h ea r d r umo r s fr o m frie nd s t ha t Ca r o l wa s a cc us ing him of th e abus e. Appe llant we nt volu nt ar ily t o t alk wit h t he po liceman abo ut t he r epo rt , sa ying he wanted to clear up the cont roversy. Appell ant’s response s were m

uchlike his te st imony—he adm itted sle ep ing in t he sa me b ed as E . G. an d h av ing he rsit o n his la p, bu t he de nie d s ex ua lly assa ult ingher. The ch

i ef di screpancy between Det ect ive McMi ll er’s memory and appellant’s rec ol l ec ti on

is that app ellant be lieved t he de tecti v e of f ered h i m cou n se l i n g i f h e w oul d adm i t gui l t, and McM il

le r denied m

aki ng the off

er; the audi

o por tion of the v

ide ot ape of the i

nterview was uni ntell igi ble and theref

ore unhel pful on this is sue. Carol testif

ie d t hat app ellant c alled her offer ing to unde rg o c ou nseling to avoi d prosecution; appel la nt denied calli

ng he r or bargain

in g for counsel

in g. Wh en E . G. r et ur ne d fr o m In dia na po lis aft er six mont hs, s he wen t to th e T ra

v i s C oun ty Ch ild Advo cac y Cent er (“t he Ce nt er ”) wher e she was inter viewed by Cynthi a C an t u, a fo r en sic i nv esti gator. Cantu sai

d E.G. t old he

r that app ellant t ou ched t he inside o f her va gina wit h his hand wh ile they were i n h i s b ed. Cant u sa id E. G. was so ft- spo ken, but op en, and that E.G. go t t eary-ey ed5

and h er voice cr ack ed w hen de scr ibing the incident . E .G . d id no t have a cce ss t o he r mo t her dur ing t he in terview, an

d the in vestigator did n

ot talk to Detect iv

e McMi ll er durin g the in terview. Mi

riam Ja ns ky, a therapis

t at t he Cen

ter who t reated E.G. bri efl y, sa id E.G. was tight-lippe d, jum py, an d had t r o ub le sl eepi

ng. Jan sky

said E.G. was very

angry at app ellant fo r t he abu se a nd at Car ol fo r c re at ing the env ironm ent in whi ch i t happened—that i s, E.G. wasan gry that so many

people other than her mother provided ch

il d care for her. Jansky

al so sa i d E.G. wa s an

gry t ha t Ca r o l ha d s o man y pe o ple over to the i

r hous e; she wan

ted m ore ti me wi th her m other. Wi tnessest est ifi

ed t hat E. G. and a ppe llant exhibit ed be havior s co nsist ent wit h t he al le gations. Psy

chologist Wi

ll ia m Ca r t er ( wh o did not exam in e E.G.) t estif

ie d that t he details

E.G. gave about the assa ult—t he sound a ppellant’s f i n gersmade, h i s h

ea v y b re ath i n g— l en t cred i b i l i ty to her outcry. Carter and psy chol ogist Jef

f Ezel l a greed that a

de lay be fo r e t he o ut cr y is no t un us ua l; young ch ildr en , pa r t icu lar ly those abuse d by

f am i l y mem bers the y l i ke, h esi tate to ma

ke an outcry because they

are confus ed by

what happen

ed, fear t hey will not be believed , a nd fear get t ing so meone they li ke i n trouble. Jan

sky testifi ed that E.G. ’s an

ger, jum pin ess, i nsom nia, and h esitance t o t alk about t he incident wer e co nsist ent wit h t he allega t ions. Appe llant’s be havior , t oo , w as no t sur pr ising f oran abuser. C arter said p eople wh o enj oy sex

with c hi ldren al so can hav

e normal sexual relationshi

ps wit h adu lts. Car t er said t hat ped op hiles oft en “gr oo m” the ir t ar get s by giving th em gif ts and taking the

m pl aces to gai nth ei

r tru st;E.G . te sti

f i ed th at, th oug

h sh e d i d n ot get al ong w i th app ellant when

she was very young, he start ed bein

g ni ce to her about a year or t wo before t he f irst as sa ul t. Detective McMill

er said that appellant’s ac kn o wle dg men t o f t he fac t s s ur r o un din g t he as sa ult was not unusual ; he

said ma ny people tell the truth righ

t up t o t he poi

nt where they

get in trouble.6 Other witnesses t estified that E .G. mi ght be making these allegations t o effect Ca ro l’s revenge agai nst her f am i l y . E ven E .G . d esc ribed her mot her ’s r elat ionship w ith ap pellant as “a roll ercoaster.” Many

witnesses testifi

ed that appell

ant was free and bl

unt with hi s criticism

of Caro l’s care er, li festyl e, and chil

d-rear in g methods. Carol testif

ie d that she was an

ex oti c dan cer a n d th at, when E . G. wa s yo un g, she ha d b ee n a nu de ma sse us e w ho oc ca si ona l l y pe rf orm ed sexu al ac ts f or mo ne y; she den

ie d doing the l

atter for y ears. Carol sai

d that her mother al so did n ot agree wi

th her li fes tyle becaus e her m

ot her was m

ore religiouswhereas C arol wasmore “ope n-m i nde d.” Ba

rba ra sai d app el l an t cal l ed Ca rol a whore an d a pros titute. Barb ara

sa id a pp ella nt nixe d C ar o l mo ving in with B arbara, appel

la nt, and Roxan

a becaus e Carol l

acked personal

and m onetary di sci

pli ne. Other testi mon y also c on cerned

th e cre di b i l i ty o f E . G. an d C ar o l. Imm

edi ately after denying that she wo uld i

nstruct E.G. to li

e about these ac cu sa t io ns, Ca r o l he r se lf t est ifi ed t hat she had got ten E.G. t o lie about their resi dence i n order to stay

at a good schoo l. Though E.G.’s teach er descri bed her as a t rut hfu l ch ild w ho wo uld even in cul pate herself, a f

am il y f rien d descri bed h er as a “ m i xe d-up k i d.” Th e s am

e f ri en d s ai d C arol wa s lying if she t es t ified t ha t E . G. we nt t o t he sa me Au st in sc ho o l fo rsix yea

rs be ca us e h e re mem be red pick i ng up E .G. f rom dif feren t schools. Though Ca rol insiste d t hat she mo ved E .G . t o I ndianap olis fo r p ro t ect ion, ot her s said s he t old t hem tha t she was moving E .G . t her e t o p ro vide t he st ability tha t she co uld no t . T he r e w as als o a d isc r ep an cy in perception of an

inc ide nt o n t he r et ur n t r ip fr o m t he fun er al in M cA llen; du r ing a mid t r ip c ha ng e in driv ers, E.G. sa id s he sa w a pp ella nt hit Ro xana a s t hey walke d behind t he ca r, but Ro xana s aid she hi t hi m l i ghtl y be caus e sh

e was upse t wi th the way he wasdri vi ng h er ca r.7 Wi tnessesal so test if

ie d to the genui

nen ess of appe ll

ant’s concern

for E.G. Fri ends and relati vessaid he never sho wed abno rmal inte re st in the ch i l d. Th ey also t esti f i ed re ga rdi n g a pa rty at wh i ch h e rous ed

Ca rol f rom a d ru n ken stu por to i n sist th at E .G . be t ake n so mewher e t hat she wo uld not be surrounded

b y dr un ken men ; wi tn es se s s ai

d th at a pp el l an t se em ed morecon cerned wi th E.G .’s wel fare than

Carol was. The

y testifi ed t hat he and Ro xana w at ched aft er E. G. ove rnight many times , someti

me s on the spur of the m

omen t, so me tim es f or many day s i n a row when

Carol dropped her off and disap pea re d wit hou t t elling them whe re she w as g oing or how long she would be gone.

The re is n o ph y si ca l ev i den ce su b sta n ti ati n g th e a ss aul t. Dr . B eth

Na uert te sti f i ed th at, under t he circ umst ance s, no ne was expe cted; the assa ult descr ibed was a digital penetrat ion of E.G .’s sexual organ that o ccurred more than a y ear be f ore E.G . re por ted it in September 199 9. E .G. ’s ph y si ca l con di ti on wa s c on siste

n t b oth wi th as sa ul t an d l ack of as sa ul t. DISCUSSI ON By hi s s ec ond poi nt of err or , app ell an

t co nt ends t hat t he co ur t er re d by exclud ing evi dence t hat wo uld have allowe d him to explain E .G .’s kno wledg e o f sexua l matt er s. Ap pellant contends tha

t ev i de nc e of Ca r o l’s livelih o o d a lso wo uld ha ve allo we d h im t o ex pla in his cri ti ci sm s of Carol and Car ol’ s an i mosi ty towa rd hi m . A defen dant has a fun dam ental righ t t o present evidence of

a defe nse as long a s t he evi dence is relev ant and i s not excl

uded b y an estab l i shed ev i den tia ry rule. See Chambers v

. Mississippi , 410 U .S. 284, 3 02 (19 73). A court can excl ude rele van t evide nce i f i ts probative val

ue is substantial ly

out wei ghed by

the danger of unfai

r prejudice, m

isl eading the j ury, or needless8

pre senta ti on of c umulat iveevi

dence. SeeTex . R. Evi d. 4 03. W e w i l l rev i ew the tri al cou rt’ s dec i si on to bar t he adm i ssi on of evi den ce un der an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. See We

atherr ed v. State , 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Cr i m. App. 200 0); Montgomer y v. State , 8 10 S .W. 2d 3 72, 390 -9 1 ( Te x. Cri m . App. 1990 ).

The t rial co ur t det er mined t hat t he evi dence adduced outside the j ury’ s presenc e re gar ding Caro l’s

oc cup at ions w as mer ely chara ct er evidenc e and irre levant , a nd t hat any pr oba t ive val ue was sub stantial

ly out wei ghed b

y the prejudi ci al effect . Ap pellant challenge s t his exclusio n, not because the e

vi den ce b ears directly on the elemen

ts o f the off

ense charged, but because the evi dence il lum in ates E.G.’s abili

ty an d motiv ation to fabri

cate testimony

about the offen

se. Bef ore exam in in g the di s t r ict co ur t ’s de cis io n, we no t e in it ially t ha t t he de cis io n is supported by anot her evident iary ru le and that the record c ontai

ns other, le ss i

nf la mm ator y e vi dence ser vingt he pu rp or t ed fu nct ion o f the exclud ed e vidence . T he t rial co ur t ’s de cision t o e xclude t he evi dence of the vi cti

m ’smother’ s work

in sexual ly oriented bus in

esses is supported by Texas Ru le of Evidence 608(b ); evi

dence regardin g a wi tness’s sexual activ ities or mi sconduct, absen t a crim in al co nvictio n, i s n

ot ad m i ss i b l e to i m pe ach or to show bad character o f the wi tness. SeeTex. R. Evid. 608(b); Ramos v. State , 8 19 S .W. 2d 9 39, 941 -4 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —Co rp us C hrist i 199 1, pet . r ef’d) . We further note that t he record refl

ects that appell

ant co uld an d d id present his theories throu gh l ess prejudi ci al evi den ce. Th e j ury he ard from several sources, in

cl udin g Carol an

d E.G., t hat

Carol had a storm y relati onsh

i p wi th appel l an t. The j ury

heard that Carol often

pas sed E.G. of f to bab y si tters in order t o spend tim

e wi th boyf rien ds, that Carol passed

out le avi ng E.G. in the compan

y of drunken men, an d t ha t ap pe llant ca lled he ra w ho r e. T he jur y als o he ar d t ha t Ca r o l wa s fina nc ially9

irr es po nsib le an

d th at sh e m ov ed aroun d q ui te a bit. Finally

, t he jur y heard t hat app ellant prevented her f rom m ovi ng i n wi th the i r m other. Re v i ewi n g th e m eri ts of the di strict court ’s decisi on, we co nc lud e t ha t t he co ur t did not ab us e it s d isc r et io n by f inding t he evi

dence n ot relev ant or pro bativ

e. The propounded evi dence—that

Car ol is an e xot ic danc er who eigh t years befo re wo rk ed a s a nu de mas seu se a nd o cc as io na lly

pe r fo r med se xu al a ct s fo rmo ne y—do es no t sho w t hat E. G. was able t o lie abo ut t he sexual assaul t knowledgeab ly

because she h ad unusual

access to sexual

knowle dge. There is no evi dence tha t E.G. obs erv

ed sexu al ac ti vi ty asa re sul t of Carol ’soccupa

tion or otherwise. Th

ereis no evi dence that E.G . knew abo ut Caro l’s pr ev io us o cc up at io n o rhe rcu rr en t o cc up at io n a s a n e xo t ic dan cer. T he ev ide nc e in st ea d is that E.G. had n ot been in t he clu b w he r e C ar o l pe r fo r med . I n su m, t he evi dence of fered di d not show a co nnect ion bet wee n Car ol’s e mployment and E.G.’s knowl edge of sexu al act ivity. T hou gh evi dence that Carol had an im osity to ward appella

nt mi ght il lum in ate a m oti va ti on for fa brication, evi

dence that Carol h

ad been a prostitut e had n

o pro bativ

e val ue re gar ding her or E.G.’s an i mosi ty towa rd appe l l an t. Appe llant’s c rit icism of Car ol has pr oba t ive value, but t he justification for that critici sm has n o bearing on the el

em en ts of the of f en se or E.G .’ s a

bi l i ty or m oti va ti on to li e. Indeed, a

ppel l an t’s de f en si ve posi tion see m s stron ger wi thout the e

vi den ce; j urors wo uld probabl

y i mpute m o r e r ig htf ul an i mosi ty to Ca rol s tem m i ng f rom a ppel l an t’s c al l i ng h er a who re if they did no t kno w t hat she a ct ually had co mmi t t ed a ct s o f pro st itu t ion. We also c on cl

ud e th at th e d i str i ct co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion by finding the mi ni ma l probative v

al ue of the ev

ide nce sub st ant ially

ou t weighe d by t he r isk o f co nfusion o f the is sues or unf

ai r prejudi ce. Evi dence

th at a se xu al a ss au lt co mpla ina nt ’s mo t he rwo r ke d in se xu ally3 The charges al so i nc l ude e l em en ts rega rdi ng a ge an d m ari tal status. There is n

o dispute that the eviden

ce satisfi es the age and mari

tal stat us elem

ents. 10 oriented busi ness es ri sks dis t r ac t ing t he jur y fro m t he ele men t s o f t he o ffen se ; ju r o r s c o uld be tem pted un fair ly t o impu t e C ar o l’s ac t io ns t o he rda ug ht er . Fu r t he r , ev ide nc e o f se xu al mis co nd uc t inhe r en t ly crea tes a s ubs tantial dan ger of unf ai r prej udice. See Montgo mery , 810 S.W.2d at 397. Because the excl

uded evi dence c o nfu se s t he iss ue s, is hig hly p r eju dic ial, ha s lit t le pr oba t ivevalue, and w as c umulat ive on t he issue s ap pellant so ught to in tro duce i t, we co ncl

ude that the cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts d i screti on b y excl udi ng i t. W e overr

ule p oi nt two. By his first po int o f err or , a ppe llantco nt en ds t ha t t he ev ide nc e is fac t ua lly insufficient to support t he j ury’ s verdic t ; he concedes that the evi

dence is l egally

suf fi ci ent. Appel

la nt was charged wi th i nten tion al l y and kn owi ngl y pen etrati ng E. G.’s se xua

l organ wi th h i s f i nge r or, alt er na t ive ly

intent ionally and

knowin gly , with i ntent to gratif

y h is sexual de sir e, t o uc hing t he ge nit als of E.G. 3 Wh

en revi ewi ng the f actual su ffi

ciency o f the evidenc e, app ellate co ur t s co nsider all the evi dence in a n eu t r al lig ht an d r ev er se o nly if t he ver dict is so co nt ra ry t o t he o ver whelming weight of the evi dence as to be un j ust. See Joh nson v. Sta te , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (T ex. Cr im . App . 20 00) ; Clew is
v . State , 922 S. W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996). We m

ust accord t he j ury’ s verdi ct due deferen ce and s hou ld no t , in effect , be co me the thi rteen th j uror. See Cle

wis , 922 S.W.2d at 133 . We ca nn ot in terfer e wi th the j ury ’s

res ol ution of con f l i ctsi n th e evi de nc e or p as s on

the we i gh t or cr ed i b i l i ty of testi mon y ; un l es s th e r ec ord cl ea rl y re v ea l s th at a dif feren t result was appropriate, we defer to the jury ’s determi

nation c oncerni

ng what weigh

t t o give contradictory testim

onia l evi dence11

because the jurors’ resol ution of suc

h conf li cts often turns on an ev al uation of credi

bi li ty an d dem ean or by the j ury . See Johnson , 23 S.W.3d at 8. Fa ct ua lly suf fi ci ent evi dence supports the judgm ent. E.G. plai

nl y testi fi ed that app ellant put his

fi ngers i n he r vagi na. Appel

la nt fl atly deni ed i t. Witness es testif

ie d that E.G. was mi xed up and h ad reasons to lie; Carol

adm itted get ting E .G. to li

e about their place of resi dence. Other witne sses testif

ie d that E. G. was gene ra lly t ru t hful and t hat her behavio rs w er e co nsist ent wi th trut h-tell in g. Naue rt and Jan sky testifi ed that E.G .’ s b eh

av i or an d ph y si cal an d e moti ona

l con di ti on were co nsist ent wit h sexu al assa ult having occurred, t hough Nau er t co nced ed t hat her behavio r a nd phy si cal an d e mo t io nal

co ndi tion were al so consis

tent with sex

ual assaul t not hav in g occurred. Appe llantadm

itted to hav

in g been convi cted of th ef t b y ch ec k i n 1 992an

d hav i ng hi s p rob ati on revoked f or probati

on v i ola tions. C ar o l sa id a pp ella nt o ffer ed t o t ak e c o un se ling t o av o id pr os ecu t ion. Appel

la nt, though, said Det ectiv e McM iller o ffer ed him co un se ling t o av o id pros ec uti on , bu t ap pe llant r efu se d. Mc Mille rde nie d o ffer ing co un se ling . T he jur y had t o mak e several credi

bili ty choices. We can

not say that t hei

r choices render their verdict so co nt ra ry t o t he overwhel mi ng wei ght of the evi

dence as to be un jus t. We overrule poi

nt one.12 CONCLU SION Having o ver ru led bo t h po ints o f err or , w e affirm the co nvictio n.

Jan P. Patterson, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Jul

y 26, 2001 Do No t Publis

h