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

NO. 03-0 8 -00 243 -CR

Hil ar io M onc ada , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -10 0011 , HO NORAB LE B RENDA P. K ENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Following a benc h tria l, a

p p e ll a nt H il a r io M o n c a d a

w a s adjudg ed g uilty

of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child and inde ce n cy with a child by

contac t. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 21.11(a) (1) ( West 2003), § 22.021(a)( 1)(B ), (2) (B ) (West Supp. 2008). The c ourt assesse d punishment for both offe nses at t we n t y y ear s’ imprisonment. I n two points of error , appellant contends that the e vidence is leg ally insufficient to sustain t h e co n v ictions. W e find that the
e vid e nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt a nd a ff ir m. When there is a c halleng e to the leg al s ufficie ncy of t he evidence to sustain a criminal conviction, the question pre sented is whethe r any rational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979); Cla y ton v . S tat e , 235 S.W .3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We r eview all the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the ve rdi ct ; i t i s assumed that the trie r of f act r esolved c onflicts in theTh e c omp la ina nt, the c omp la ina

nt’ s mo the r, and

a pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d thro ug h in te rp re te rs . 1 2 testimony , weig hed the e vidence , and dre w re asonabl e i n fer ence s in a manner that supports the verdic t. Clayton , 235 S.W .3d at 778.

The c omplainant’s mother testified that in J anuar y 2006, the complainant, who w as then four y ear s old, told her that appellant ha d put his penis i n t o t h e co m p l ainant’s mouth and “hiney .” She re ported this outcry to the police. Th e c omp la ina

nt t e sti fi e d th a t a

pp e lla nt “ g ot h is b ir d o ut a

nd he pu t it wi th b loo d in
m y m o u th
. ” A s k e d

w h e r e a p p e l l an th a d t o u c h e d h i m w i t h h i s “ b i r d , ” t h e c o mp l a i n an tan s w e r e d , “ In my hin e y and my mouth. ” Th e c omp la ina

nt t e sti fi e d th a t he , to o, ha s a “ bir d” and

that he us e d it

to g o the bathroom. He added that “[p] ee- pee” comes out of the “bird.” Asked to point to the “bird”
on an a natom ic a lly

c or re c t do ll, the c omp la ina

nt p oin te d to the do ll’ s p e nis . The c omp la ina nt a lso te sti fi e d th a t a

pp e lla nt “ tou c h[e d] me in my hin e y ” wi th his ha nd s. Th e c omp la ina

nt s a id t hat th e se things ha ppened twic e, on “Santa

Claus day ” and “ another day .” Th e c omp la ina

nt w a s e xami ne d b y

Dr . B e th N a

ue rt , a pe diatr ic ian w ithe xpe rt ise in the fi e ld o f c hil d s e xua l a

bu se . A s p art

of he r e xami natio n, Na

ue rt int e rv ie we d th e c omp la ina nt w ith the aid of a

n interpre ter. Naue rt testified that the c omplainant told her “toco mi cola mi papa.” She

1 te sti fi e d th a t sh e un de rs too d thi s to me an that “ my fathe r t ou c he d my

—a nd Idid n’ t kn owa t th a t ti me what he w as re fer

ring to—cola. B ut after

he did hi s d ra wi n g, he wa s ref err ing to his re ctum.” Na ue rt te sti fi e d th a t th e c omp la ina nt a lso t ol d he r t

hat a pp e lla nt “ tou c he d h is b ott om w ithhis fing er.” Naue rt adde d that the complainant indicat ed t o her that appellant had touc hed the complainant’s “ g roin or penis a rea ” and his “ rec tal are a.”3 Naue rt testified that the complainant’s phy sical examination was unre marka ble. The doctor found no tear s or sca rs, and de termined that “ the tone or the muscle tensene ss was normal.” Naue rt testified that this was not i n consi stent with a claim of “ rec tal penetr ation.” Aske d by the prosec utor, “[ H] o w i s i t p o ssible that someone could invade the anus of a child and not leave tear ing,” Naue rt replied, “ The re ctum is a very stretcha ble par t of y our body .” I n his own testimony , appellant de nied all the alleg ations ag ainst him. He said that he did no t un de rs tand

wh y the c omp la ina

nt w ou ld m a ke su c h a c c us a tio ns . The indictment con t ained six counts, two each f or ag g ravated sexual assault of a child, indece ncy

with a ch i l d by

contac t, and indece ncy

with a child by

exposure. The c ourt adjudg ed appe llant guilty on only two counts: (1) a g g ravated s ex u al as sault by causingthe complainant’s a

nus to contact a

ppellant’s sexual org an, and (2) indecency with a child by touching the complainant’ s anus with the intent to arouse or g ratify appel l an t’s sexual desire. Appe llant
c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt to su

pp or t his c on vic tio n fo r e ith e r o ff e ns e be c a us e the re is n o e vid e nc e that w he n th e c omp la ina nt t e sti fi ed th a t a

pp e lla nt t ou c he d o r p e ne tr a te d h is “hiney , ” he w as re fer

ring to his anus. Appellant points out that when asked w hat he mea nt by

“ hin e y ,” the c omp la ina

nt a ns we re d, “ I sit wi th my hin e y .” Ap pe lla nt argue s th a t th is t e sti mony fa ils to support the conclusion that the c omplainant used t h e wo rd “hiney ” to re fer to his anus, and the re fo re the e vid e nc e do e s not es ta bli sh that app e lla

nt ei the r co nta c te d th e c omp la ina nt’ s anu s w ith his pe nis or

that he oth e rw ise tou c he d th e c omp la ina nt’ s a nu s. The c omplainant testified t hat appellant put his “bird,” or pe nis, “in my hiney .” He also testified t hat appellant touched him “in m y hiney ” with his hands. The re cord r efle cts that when4

the complainant wa s asked whe re his “ hiney ” is loc ated, he acc ompanied his ve rbal answe r with a visual demonstration us ing the anatomica lly corr ect doll. The tria l court had the benef it of seeing this demonstration. I n addition, Nauer t testified that the complainant repor ted t o her that appellant had touche d his “rec tum.” Considering Naue rt’s testimony as a whole, it is reasonable to infer that sh e wa s u sin g the te rm

“ re c tum ” to r e fe r t o th e anu s. Appellant conc edes that when Na uert’s testimony is c onsidered, the evidenc e “ma y be suff icient” to prove the require d contac t of t he complainant’s anus. He ur g es, howe ver, that the do c tor ’s te sti mony

re c ounti ngthe c omplain ant’ s st a te me nts to h e r w a s in a dmi ssi ble , a lbe it
un ob je c te d- to, he ars ay . We expr e ss n o o pin ion a s to wh e the r N a

ue rt ’s te sti mony

wa s in a dmi ssi ble hear say beca use, eve n if it were , inadmissible hearsa y ad mitted without obj ection “sha ll not be denied p r o b a ti v e v a lu e me r e ly b e c a u s e it is h e ar s ay . ” T e x. R. E v id
. 8 0 2
. M o r e g e n e rally , we consider all evidenc e in the record when conducting a leg al suffic iency revie w, eve n evidenc e that was inadmissible. De wbe rry v . S tat e , 4 S.W .3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Al tho ug h th e State mus t me e t it s b ur de n o f p ro of in e ve ry c a se , w e do no t e xpe c t a
c hil d to te sti fy

wi th t he same c lari ty

or pr e c isi on

a s w e wo uld

e xpe c t f

rom a n a du lt. Se e Vi lla lon v . S

tat e , 791 S.W .2d 130, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Considering a ll of the testimony in the rec ord, both lay

and medica l, in the light most favora ble t o the result, and keepingin mind that the tr ia l c ourt

ha d th e be ne fi t of

se e ingthe c omp la ina

nt t e sti fy and watc hin g his de mon str a tio ns wi th the anatomically

corr ect doll, we hold that a rational t ri er o f fa ct could have found be y ond a
rea sonable doubt that appellant caused the complainant’s a nus to touch his penis and that appe llant5

also, and sepa

rate ly , touched the complainant’s anus with the intent to arouse or g ratify his sex ual desire. T he points of er

ror a re ove rruled. There is a separ ate judg ment for e ach co u n t
. The judg ments of conviction ar e af

firmed.

_____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Mar ch 3, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh