Opinion filed Februar y 4 , 2 010



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 02 01 -CR

____ ____ __ HOWA RD EU GEN E TA YLO R, Ap pellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 385th Distric t Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR 33995

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Howar d Eug ene Taylor of agg ravated s exual assault of a child as alleg ed in C ount 1 of

the ind ic tme nt a

nd a sse sse d p un ish me nt at f ive y e ars c on fi neme nt. Th e jur y a lso convicted a

ppellant of indec ency

with a child as alleg ed in Count 2 of the indictment and asse ssed punishment at ten y ear s confineme nt and a $2,500 fine . The trial c ourt suspended the imposit ion of the conf inement portion of the s entence for indece ncy

with a child and plac ed appe llant on community

supervision. The tria l court did not suspend the i mpositi on of puni shment in Count 1. We a ff ir m.2

I n h is fi rst po in t of e rr or , a pp e lla nt c omp la ins that th e e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his c onvic tio ns . In h is f

ourt h p oin t of e rr or , h e argue s th a t hi s “ du e pr oc e ss ri g hts we re vio la te d” be c a us e the jur

y c on vic te d h im w ithins uf fi c ient evide nc e . In o rd e r t o de te rm ine if

the e vid e nc e is l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt, we mus t r e vie w a ll o f t he e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t favor able to the ve rdict and d et ermine w hether any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential ele ments of the cr ime bey ond a r easonable doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307 (1 97 9) ; J ac k so n v . S tat e , 1 7 S. W.3 d 6 64 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). To de te rm ine if the e vid e nc e is fac tually sufficie nt, the appellate court revie ws all of the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht. W ats on v . S tat e , 20 4 S. W.3 d 404 , 414 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( ov e rr uli ngin p art Zun iga v . S

tat e , 144 S.W .3d 477 (T e x. Cr im . Ap p. 20 04 )) ; J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W .3d 1, 10-11 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000); Cain v. Sta te , 95 8 S.W. 2d 40 4, 40 7- 08 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Cle wis v . S tat e , 9 2 2 S. W. 2 d

1 2 6 , 1 2 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1996). Then, the r eviewingcourt de termines whe ther the e viden c e s u p p o r ti n g the ver dict is s o we a k tha t the ve rd ic t is c le arl y wr on g and manif e stl y un jus t or w he the r t

he ve rd ic t is a g a ins t the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conf licting e vidence

. W

atson , 204 S.W .3d at 414-15; Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 10-11. We r eview the fac tfinder’ s weig hing of the evidenc e and c annot substitute our judgme nt for that of the fa ctfinder

. Cai n , 9 58 S.W. 2d a t 40 7; Cle wis , 9 2 2 S

. W

. 2 d a t1 3 5

. D u e d e f

e r e n c e m u st be g iven to the jury ’s deter m i n at i on, particula

rly conce rning the weig ht and cr edibility of the evidenc e. Johnson , 2 3 S. W.3 d at 9; J on es v . S tat e , 944 S.W. 2d 64 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Th is

c ourt ha s th e a uth or ity to d isa g re e wi th t

he fa c tf ind e r’ s d e te rm inatio n “ on ly wh e n th e re c or d c le a rl y indicates such a

step is nece ssary

to arre st the occur

renc e of a

manifest injustice.” Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 9. The victim testified that she was ten y ear s old a nd that she lived with her g randmother . The victim’s gr andmother w as marr ied to a ppellant’s brother, D avid Tay lor. The victim testified that she

was seve n y ear s old the first time she had an encounte r with a ppellant that made he r uncomfor table. She was in her

room at her

g randmother ’s house listening to music, and appe llant came into her

ro om a nd “ g ot o n to p” of

he r. Ap pe lla

nt l e ft wh e n s ome on e c a lle d h im t o th e oth e r r oo m. Th e v i ct i m testified that there was a nother incide nt about one month later w hen she w ent with David and a

ppellant to pick up food fr om a re staurant. Da vid got out of the vehicle , and the3

victim and appellant r emained insid e o f t h e v eh icle. The victim was sitting in the bac kseat, a nd appellant turne d around f

rom the passe ng er side of the front seat and told he r to open he r leg s. The victim stated that appellant “ tried to put his hand throug h [her] skort.” Appellant put his hand

un de rn e a th t

he vic tim ’s sk or

t and tou c he d h e r p ri vate pa

rt . D a vid re tur ne d to the ve hic le and

tol d

a pp e lla nt a nd the vic timto c ome ins ide the re sta ur ant. The victim stated tha t s ev er al wee ks later ther e wa s another inc ident with appellant. She

we nt w itha

pp e lla nt t o a dr ive -thro ugh con ve nie nc e sto re in D a vid ’s pic ku p to buy c ig are tte s. Appellant and the victim were in line at the drive- throug h wi t h t he victim sitti ng in the passeng er seat of the pickup. The vic tim dropped something in the f loorboard, a

nd when she bent down to pick it u p, a pp e lla nt “ y ank e d” he r tow ard him . The vic timte sti fi e d th a t a pp e lla nt h a d unzip pe d h is p a nts

and that he fo rc e d h e r t o p ull do wn his un de rw e ar. Ap pe lla

nt t he n f or c e d th e vic tim ’s he a d o nto his penis, and appellant’s penis went ins ide of her mouth. The victim told her mother that a ppellant was “messing ” with her. The victim a lso told her school counselor, and soon afte r, she wa s interviewe d at the Children’s Advoc acy Center. Appellant testified at trial and denied g oing to the restaur ant with the victim a nd Da v id. Appellant said that he did not touch the victim’s underwe ar throug h her s k o rt. Appellant fur ther denied g oing to the drive-thr oug h convenie nce store with the victim and causingher mouth to touch his pe nis

. Appellant ar g ues that there was no e vidence that the victim was not his spouse. Howeve r,
on cross-e x amination, the State aske d appellant if the victim was his spouse

. Appellant re sponded, “No, she is not.” Appellant also ar gu es that the e vidence is insufficient bec ause the victim gave inconsistent statements about the incidents. Appe llant questioned the victim about her inconsistent statements at trial. The victim a cknowledg ed that she initially did not tell the truth in her intervie w at the Children’s Advoc acy Center be cause she wa s scar ed. The jury is the sole judge of the

c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s an d t h e w e i g h t t o b e g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art . 36. 13 (V e rn on 20 07 ), art . 38. 04 (V e rn on 19 79 ). Th e jur y is the e xclu siv e jud g e of

the c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s and the we ight to be g iven t heir testim ony
. W esb ro ok v . S tat e , 2 9 S. W. 3 d

1 0 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2000). We find that the evidenc e is leg ally and fa ctually sufficie nt to support appellant’s4

c on vic tio ns fo r a g g ra

vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult and ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d. Ap pe lla nt w a s n ot d e nie d h is due proc ess rig hts. W e over rule the f irst and fourth points of er ror. Appellant ar g ues in his second point of error that the S tate made improper state ments during voir dire. A tr ial court ha s broad discr etion over the proce ss of selec ting a jury

. Ba ra

jas v . S tat e , 93 S.W .3d 36, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We le ave to the trial court’ s discretion the propr iety of

a pa rt ic ula r q ue sti on , a nd the tr ia l c ourt ’s dis c re tio n wi ll no t be dis tur be d on a pp e a l a bs e nt a n a bu se of that discre tion. Se lls v . S tat e , 1 21 S.W. 3d

74 8, 75 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); Barajas , 93 S.W .3d

a t 38 . In v oir

dir e e xami natio ns , g re a t latit ud e sh ou ld b e a llo we d s o th a t c ouns e l fo r b oth the State and th e d e f

e n s e h a v e a g o o d an d s u f f ic ie n t o p p o rtu

n it y to a s s e s s th e r e lati v e d e s ir a b il it y of the members of

the venire

. Nor ton v . S

tat e , 93 0 S.W. 2d 10 1, 10 3- 04 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo 19 96 , p e t. ref ' d). Ap pe lla

nt fi rs t com

pla ins of the State ’s c omm e nt, “ [E]ve ry bo dy in h e re is g oin g to t

hink th is i s a h o r r i b l e c r i m e
. O k ay
. Y o uw an to n l y p e o p l e o nt h e j u r

y t h a tt h i n k

t h i s i s n o ta

b i g d e a l ?” Appellant conte nds that the statement assumes a crime has been committed. Viewingthe statement i n co n t ex t , t h e S t at e wa s re s p o n d i n g t o a pr o s p ec t i v e ju ro r’ s co m m en t t h at h e ha d s t ro n g f e el i n gs about sexual abuse of c hildren and w as in ref ere nce to the of

fense in ge nera l. Mor eover , appellant did not object to the s tatement and, there fore , has not prese rved his complaint for r eview. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a)( 1). Ap pe lla nt n e xt co mpl a ins of

the state me nt: Yo um i gh tget t o h ea r h i m
. An d i f y o u d o get t o h ea r hi m , t h en y o uca nj u d ge what his motive would be, like why would he g et up there and lie. Ag ain viewe d in context, the State was discussing appellant’ s rig ht not to testi fy . The State infor med the jurors that they

could not hold it aga inst appellant if he c hose not to testify . The S tate g ave possible e x planations for why appellant might choose not to testify

. Howeve r, appellan t d i d n ot object to the stateme nt and has not pre serve d his complaint for re view. Rule 33.1(a )(1)

. Ap pe lla nt n e xt co mpl a ins of

the State ’s c omm e nts duri ng vo ir dir e a bo ut “ mis c on c e pti on s” of sexu al ab u s e of childre n. Appellant objec ted that the State wa s testify ing a nd g oing be y ond

a sk ingqu e sti on s. Th e tr ia l c ourt state d, “ Ia g re e ,” and

the State a g re e d to re ph ra se . App e lla nt d id not reque st an instruction to disreg ard the comment or seek a mistrial. Appellant has not pre serve d5

this complaint for revie w. Se e Y ou ng v . S tat e , 1 3 7 S

. W.3d 65, 69 (Tex. C rim. App. 2004). A p p e ll an t h a s n o t s h o w nth e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o nd

u r in g th e ju

r y s e le c ti o n p r o c e s s
. We

overr ule the sec ond point of err or. I n his third, fifth, six th, seventh, and e ighth points of er ro r, appe llant complains that the State’s closing arguments during the g uilt/i nn o c e n c e p h a s e a n d th e p u nishment phase we re imprope r. Appellant complains of se vera l instances whe re, he claims, the State d u ri n g i t s closing a rg ument improperly

struck at appellant over counsel’s shoulders, eng ag ed in imprope r bolstering , attempted to invade the pr ovince of the jury , and eng ag ed in unfa ir tactics. Appellant fa iled to object to any of the stateme nts that he complains about on appea l. Appellant has not pr eser ved his complaints for

a pp e llate re vie w. Rul e 33 .1 (a )( 1) . M or e ov e r, a pp e lla nt ha s no t sh ow n any

ha rm by the state me nts

. We overrule Points of Err or Nos. Thre e, F ive, Six , Seven, and E ight. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

J I M R. W RI GHT

CH I EF JUSTI CE

Fe bruar y 4, 2010 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.