NO. 07-06 -046 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JAN UA RY

4, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JUAN DE LA CRUZ , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 88- 407,845 ; H ON ORABLE CE CI L G. PU RY EAR , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON This i s a n out -o f-ti me appeal co nduct ed atthe directi on of the Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeal s. In 1990, Appel lan t, Juan De La Cr uz , w as conv icted b y a ju ry of aggravated se x ual assault and pun ishm ent w as assesse d by the trial court at thirty y ears2

confine ment. Present ing a sol e iss ue, Appel lan t contend s the ev ide nce present ed dur ing th e g ui l t- i nn oc en c e ph as e of t he t r i al w as factu al l y i ns uffi c i en t. W e affi r m. Back ground Acc o rd i n g t o t h e v i ct i m, w ho i s A ppel lan t’ s s tepdaug hter , s he w as sex ual ly as saul ted by Appel lan t on Saturday , F ebr uar y 20, 1988. She w as ele v en y ears o ld at the time. She tes ti fied th at w hil e s he and her eig ht- y ear-o ld si ste r w ere w atc hin g tel ev is ion i n the l iv ing ro om and h er

mother w as at w or k a nd ot her si bli ng s were not i n t h e house, A ppel lan t cal le d h e r to his bedro om , closed the do or, and placed a chair und er the d oorkn ob. He then ask ed her

to undress , w hic h she refused to do. Ap pel lan t t hen pul led her pant s a nd pan ties do w n arou nd h er knee s and instructed her to lay down on the bed . He pulled his pants and under

w ear dow n to his kn ees and accordin g to the v icti m, he hel d hi s “ pr iv ate par t” and ru bbed i t ag ain st her pr iv ate p art. The v icti m tes ti fied that foll ow ing the inc ide nt, Ap pe l l an t c l ea ne d he r an d hi ms el f an d s he dres s ed h ers el f an d ret ur ne d to t he l i v i ng roo m. The foll ow ing Thursday , t h e vic ti m in tended to r un aw ay from home but t old her si ste r she w oul d be sta y ing after sc hool for tutor ing
. She encou ntered her fri end Tabi tha, w hom sh e w as not s uppos ed to ass oci ate w it h, an d c onfided i n her aboutthe ass aul t. The tw o he ade d to T abith a’s grand fath er’s house and o n the way , w ere spot ted b y t he victim’s old er brother
. Fear ing thather brother w oul d tell s h e wa s with Tabith a, s he ran i nsi de Tabith a’s g ra ndfa th e r’s hous e, an d Tabi tha c all ed th e pol ic e to re por t t he i nci dent w it h Appel lan t.See A c to f M a y2 9 , 1 9 8 7 , 7 0 t h L e g. , R. S
. , ch
. 1 0 2 9 , § 1 , 1 9 8 7 T e x. G e n . L a ws 1 347 4 (current version at T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 22. 011 (a) (Vernon Su pp. 200 7)). 3 Me anw hil e, a mis si ng ch il d repor t had been is sued on the v icti m, and Off ic er D usty Stag g s track ed her dow n at a di fferent resi dence than Tabit ha’ s g ra ndfather ’s
. He took her int o protec ti v e c ust ody and cal led for a ss is tanc e from a female off ic er , Pa tsy C ur ry , t o int er v iew h e r. H e al so cal led C hil d Protec ti v e Ser v ic es. O ff ic er

C ur ry tes ti fied th at t he v icti m had be en c ry ing and w as upset
. After they w or ke d o u t common de finit ion s t o desc ri be body

par ts, the v icti m final ly

tol d O f f ice r Cur ry

thatAppel lan t “ had w ent i nsi de her .” Ap pel lan t and her si ste r w ere remov ed from t hei r home by C hil d Protec ti v e Ser

v ic es and pl aced in foster

ca re . CPS referred th e v ictim to Dr. Jenn ie Patrick, a pe diatrician , fo r a sex ual assa ult exam on M a rc h 1 , 1 9 8 8 . In add ition to a f ull ex am of the victim, Dr. Patrick also interview ed th e v ictim. Accord ing to he r t e stimo ny, the results of the exam w ere inc oncl usi v e for full penetrati on of the female s ex ual org an; h ow ev er , t he vict im had infla mmation of the v est ibu le of the female sex ual org an. In a tw o- count ind ictment, Appel lan t w as charg ed i n 1990 w it h ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t by

co ntac t and penetrati on. At tr ial , how ev er , the S tate ele cte d to proceed onl y on the s ex ual co ntac t all eg ati on. As re lev ant to the al leg ati ons in the u nder ly ing ca se, the law in effectat the t ime Appel lan t w as charg ed i n 1988 w as subs tanti all y the same a s t he cur re nt v ersi on. 14 Fact ual Su ff icien cy

St and ard o f Rev iew Appel lan t c ontends the ev ide nce present ed duri ng the g uil t- inn ocenc e phas e of the trial w as factu ally

insuf f icient. T he T exas Cou rt of Cri min al App eals ha s adjust ed a direct app ellate court’s power to rev ie w factu al suf

f iciency of

the evidence in line w ith civ il pract ic e. Ma rs hal

l v. State , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) , cer t. denied , __ U. S. _ _ , 1 2 8 S .C t. 8 7 , _

_ L. Ed .2 d __

(20 0 7 ), cit in g W

ats on v . St ate , 204 S.W .3d 4 04, 4 15 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. W hen c onduc ti ng a factual suffici ency re v iew , w e ex amine all the evidence in a ne utral light and de term ine w het her the jury w as ra ti onal ly jus ti fied i n findi ng g uil t bey ond a re asona ble doubt
. Zuni ga v . St ate , 144 S.W .3d 4 77, 4 84 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004) , o v

e r r u le d i n par t by W a ts on , 204 S.W .3d at 415 -17. Evidence ca n be factu ally ins uff ic ien t i n tw o w ay s: (1 ) the v erdict seems cl ear ly w ro ng or manifestl y

unj ustor

( 2) the v erdict i s again st the g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Marshall , 210 S
. W
. 3 d a t 6 2 5
. A fa c t u a l s u ffi c i e n c y re v i e w p e r mi t s t h e re v i e w i n g c o u rt t o s u b s t i t ute i ts judgme nt for a jury ’s o n question s of credibility

and w eight det ermin ation s, “albeit to a v ery limited degree.” Id. , c it in g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 417
. Ne v erthe less, w e can notrev erse a c onv icti on unl ess w e find some obj ect iv e basi s in the re cord that demonst ra tes thatthe g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce co n tradi cts the jur y ’s v erdict or

thatan app ellant ’s co nviction is “clearly w rong or man ifestly unju st.” W ats on , 204 S.W .3d a t 417
. Addi ti onal ly , as di re cte d bythe Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls , w e mustco nsi der the mos t i mport ant e v ide nce that an appe ll ant c lai ms und er mines the jur y ’s v erdict. S ims5

v. State , 99 S. W .3d 600 , 603 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 2003 ). Cogniz ant tha t w e are to conside r all evidence in a n eut ral lig ht in conduct ing a factu al suf f iciency rev iew , w e are no t, ho w ever, re q uired to di sc uss al l ev ide nce admitted a t t ri al. See i d. See als o Rober

ts v. Sta te , 221 S.W .3d 659 , 665 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7). The jur y i s t he ex cl usi v e j udg e of the fact s. T ex . Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar t. 36.13 & 38. 04 ( Ver n o n 2 0 07)
. As a rev iew ing co urt, w e mustal w ay s remain cog niz ant o f the jur y ’s role and uni q ue pos it ion i n ev alu ati ng credi bilityand demeanor of w it ness es and g iv ing w eig ht t o c ontradi cto ry tes ti monial ev ide nce. Johns on v . St ate , 2 3 S.W .3d 1, 8-9 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). Re c o n c il ia t io n o f co n f li c t s i n t h e e vid e n c e is wit h in t h e e xc lu s ive prov inc e of the jur

y . Ma rgra ves

v. Sta te , 34 S. W .3d 912 , 9 1 9 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0). Unl ess the re cord c lea rl y demonstrates a different resul t i s a ppropr iat e, w e mustdefer to the j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on. Johns on , 23 S.W .3d a t 8. A nal ysis I n s u p p o rt o f h i s fa c t u a l i n s u ffi c i e n c y c o n t e n t i o n , A p p e l l a n t ma i n t a i n s t h at t he evidence is too w eak to supp ort guilt beyond a reaso nab le dou bt. He also asse rts there w ere incon sistencie s in the v ictim’s and her si ster’s testim ony and challen ges the vi ctim’s credi bil ity

on w hether she w as fully penet ra ted b ecaus e s he l ater retract ed her

st or y after her ex aminat ion s rev eal ed no phy si cal ev ide nce of inj ur y .6 Inc onsi ste nci es in Testi mony The in cons is tencies i n the v icti m’s and her si ste r’ s t est imony

thatAppel lan t compl ain s o f are (1 ) his i nst ru cti ons to t he v icti m’s s ist e r to l ook out t he w ind ow after he cal led the v icti m to hi s b edroom and (2 ) w hat t he s is ter heard after

the bedroom door cl osed. The v icti m tes ti fied that Appel lan t ins tr uct ed her si ste r to loo k o ut t he w ind ow and w atc h for thei r mother

w hil e the y

w ere i n the bedroom. Her si ste r tes ti fied th at A ppel lan t ins tr uct ed her to loo k out the w ind ow for “a ny body ” and “s hout and tel l him” if an yone approache d. T h e vic ti m al so tes ti fied th at after Appel lan t c los ed th e bedroom door , he pushe d a c hai r under neath the d oor knob. Her si ste r tes ti fied that she heard the “ door knob [si c] cl ose” and nothi ng el se. The in cons is tenc ies Appel lan t c omplai ns of are subt le; the gistof his i nst ru cti ons to t he v icti m’s si ste r, reg ardle ss of w hether the jur y beli ev ed the vi cti m or

her si ste r, w as for t he victim’s siste r t o act as a l oo k ou t w hi l e he a nd t he v i c ti m w ere i n th e be droo m. Inc onsi ste nci es in tes ti mony are for the jur y to re sol v e and becau se the record here does not reflectthata different re sul t i s a ppropr iat e, w e mustdefer to t he j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on. Deg re es of Penetrati on Dr
. Patr ic k tes ti fied that the v icti m’s ex am w as nor mal ex ceptfor i nflammati on of the li nin g of the v est ibu le, w hic h could hav e resu lt ed f ro m poor hy g ien e or

par ti al penetrati on. During cross-examina tion, she test if ied th at w hen she f irst q uest ione d the v ictim, she said7

tha t App el la n th ad p ut his pe nis “inside” her and moved it up a nd d own. D uring redirect ex aminat ion , D r. Pat ri ck ex pla ine d tha t s he and the v icti m di d no t di sc uss the different areas of the female sex ual org an th at c oul d be penetrated. H er repor t prov ide d tha t t he v icti m in dic ated that Appel lan t had “ bumped hi s p e n is u p agai nsther .” Sh e det er mined tha t altho ugh the physical ev iden ce w as incon clusiv e for f ull pen etrat ion, it w as po s sible for her findi ng s t o be cons is tent w it h the v icti m’s st or y –thatAppel lan t par

ti all y penet ra ted her at lea st throug h the v est ibu le of the female sex ual org an. Addi ti onal ly , s he te sti fied that g iv en th e number

o f d a ys b e tween t he i nci dent and t he i nit ial ex am–Febr uar y 20 t o Ma rc h 1–phy si cal i nju ri es, i f any , w oul d hav e probabl y heal ed. On M arch 9, 19 88, t he v icti m w as exam in e d byD r. R afael G arci a, a pedi atr ic ian specia liz ing i n child ab use, neglect, and sexual abu se cases. He testif ied th at th e v ictim never indicate d f ull v aginal pen etrat ion and repo rted that Appellan t had push ed h is penis ag ain st her

v ag ina
. W it h the us e of g ener icsl ide s, Dr . G arci a tes ti fied abou t the d ifferent par ts of the female sex ual org an and ex pla ine d that a chi ld coul d be easi ly co nfused on the dif feren t degrees of

pen etrat ion. T he resu lts of his exam of the vi ctim, a prepu besce nt girl , re v eal ed th at he r hy men had extra ti ss ue know n as “redundant folds. ” Al thoug h he ag re ed w it h D r. Pat ri ck

thatthere w as no phy si cal ev iden ce o f f o rc eful pene trati on, t he l ack of findi ng s d id not n eces sar il y co ntradi ct the v icti m’s alle g ati ons. Part ial penet ra ti on w it hout phy si cal i nju ry

w as p o ss ible. I n respon se to q uest ion ing , D r. Garci a tes ti fied th at he b e li e ve d t h e vic t im ’s st o ry.8

Appel lan t mai ntai ns that the v icti m chan g ed her st or y f ro m p enetrati on to par ti al pe ne trat i on o f t he “ fol ds ” o f he r s ex ual organ afte r

rea l i z i ng t ha t th e me di c al e x am s re v eal ed no phy si cal ev ide nce of inj ur y . W e di sag re e. T he e v iden ce indica tes th at th e v ictim w as un fam iliar w ith t h e ma le and fem ale sex ual org ans. I n f a ct, s he us ed anat omic all y co rrectdol ls dur ing her tes ti mony . She tes ti fied th at w hen q uest ion ed by Officer C ur ry , s he to ld her

thatAppel lan t had “ w ent i nsi de her,” be cause she didn ’t know oth erw ise. During trial, she testif ied th at Ap pellan t puthis pr i v a t e p a rt “ b e tw e e n t h e fo l d s , ” a n d e x p l a i n e d t h a t s h e fi rs t h e a rd t h e t e r m “fol ds” from Off ic er C ur ry . Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , Off ic er C ur ry w as ask ed w hy

her repor t reflect ed th at Appel lan t had “ penetrated” the v icti m . S he ex pla ine d tha t s he unde rs tood the v icti m to me an p en e t ra t io n w hen she repo rted th at Ap pellan t “had went inside h er.” She also tes ti fied th at s he and the v icti m di d notdi sc uss w hat “ ins ide ” or penet ra ti on meant
. The defense s trateg y

w as that the v icti m had fabr ic ated the all eg ati ons becau se she knew sh e w oul d g et i n troubl e for ass oci ati ng w it h Tabi tha. A p p e llant arg ues that he b ro u gh t o u t fa c t s c o n t ra ry t o t h e ve rd ic td u ri n g t h e vic t im ’s cr o s s -e xa m in a t io n . Sp e c if ic a ll y, he poi nts to ev ide nce that the v icti m w as not u pset a t th e t im e of the inc ide nt bu t w as cry ing and up set w hen foun d by Off icer Staggs f iv e da y s later.9

Off ic er Sta g g s t est ified thatw hen he found the v icti m, s he w as cr y ing and upsetand did not w ant t o g o home. The v icti m tes ti fi e d t h a t she w as re li ev ed w hen pol ic e ar ri v ed. Acc ordin g to the v icti m, Appe ll ant h ad th re atened to h u rther i f she di sc los ed w hat h ad happened. Sh e al so tes ti fied that she w as aw are that if she re cant ed her all eg ati ons, sh e coul d l eav e fost er

care and li v e w it h her mother
. She w as not w il li ng to do s o and added that she did not w ant t o l iv e w it h her mother if

A p p e llant w as there. The v icti m’s si ste r li kew is e tes ti fied th at s he preferred to li v e w it h her mother , butnot if Appel lan t w as li v ing w it h the m. Conclusion Viewi ng all the evidence in a neu tral light, w e f ind no object iv e ba sis in the record that demonst ra tes thatthe g re at w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce cont ra dicts the j u r y ’ s v e rd i c to r

t h a tA p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n i s c l e a r l yw r o n g o r m a n i fe s t l y

u n j u s t
. W e conclu de th e evidence is fact ually suf f icient to supp ort App ellant ’s convi ction. Hi s sole is sue is ov er ru led
. Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.