Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 622.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 513 (2000)

547

Opinion of the Court

rules, but this says absolutely nothing about whether they
have introduced a quantum of evidence sufﬁcient to convict
the offender. Sufﬁciency of the evidence rules (by deﬁni-
tion) do just that—they inform us whether the evidence in-
troduced is sufﬁcient to convict as a matter of law (which is
not to say the jury must convict, but only that, as a matter
of law, the case may be submitted to the jury and the jury
may convict).
In the words of Article 38.07, “[a] convic-
tion . . . is supportable” when its requirements are met.

IX

The dissent contends that Article 38.07 is not a sufﬁciency
It begins its argument by describing
of the evidence rule.
at length how the corroboration requirement “is premised on
a legislative judgment that accusations made by sexual as-
sault victims above a certain age are not independently
trustworthy.” Post, at 556; see also post, at 557–559. But
it does not follow from that premise that Article 38.07 cannot
be a sufﬁciency of the evidence rule. Surely the legislature
can address trustworthiness issues through witness compe-
In-
tency rules and sufﬁciency of the evidence rules alike.
deed, the statutory history to which the dissent points cuts
against its own argument. Article 38.07’s statutory ante-
cedent, the dissent says, was a “replac[ement]” for the old
common-law rule that seduced females were “ ‘incompetent’ ”
as witnesses. Post, at 557, 558.
In 1891, Texas substituted
a law stating that “ ‘the female alleged to have been seduced
shall be permitted to testify; but no conviction shall be had
upon the testimony of the said female, unless the same is
corroborated . . . .’ ” Post, at 558 (emphasis added). That
statute was recodiﬁed as Article 38.07 in 1965, was repealed
in 1973, and then replaced in 1975 by another version of Arti-
cle 38.07. As reenacted, the law’s language changed from
“no conviction shall be had” to its current language that “[a]
conviction . . . is supportable.” We think this legislative his-
tory, to the extent it is relevant for interpreting the current