Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 593

529US2

Unit: $U52

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

518

CARMELL v. TEXAS

Opinion of the Court

ciency of the evidence rule respecting the minimum quantum
If the stat-
of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction.
ute’s requirements are not met (for example, by introducing
only the uncorroborated testimony of a 15-year-old victim
who did not make a timely outcry), a defendant cannot be
convicted, and the court must enter a judgment of acquittal.
See Leday v. State, 983 S. W. 2d 713, 725 (Tex. Crim. App.
1998); Scoggan v. State, 799 S. W. 2d 679, 683 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1990). Conversely, if the requirements are satisﬁed,
a conviction, in the words of the statute, “is supportable,”
and the case may be submitted to the jury and a conviction
sustained. See Vickery v. State, 566 S. W. 2d 624, 626–627
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Burnham v. State, 821 S. W.
2d 1, 3 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991).2

Texas amended Article 38.07, effective September 1, 1993.
The amendment extended the child victim exception to
victims under 18 years old.3 For four of petitioner’s counts,

2 Texas courts treat Article 38.07 as a sufﬁciency of the evidence rule,
rather than as a rule concerning the competency or admissibility of evi-
dence. Ordinarily, when evidence that should have been excluded is erro-
neously admitted against a defendant, the trial court’s error is remedied
on appeal by reversing the conviction and remanding for a new trial.
See, e. g., Miles v. State, 918 S. W. 2d 511, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996);
Beltran v. State, 728 S. W. 2d 382, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). A trial
court’s failure to comply with the requirements of Article 38.07, by con-
trast, results not in a remand for a new trial, but in the reversal of con-
viction and remand for entry of an order of acquittal. See, e. g., Scoggan,
799 S. W. 2d, at 683. At oral argument, Texas agreed that the foregoing
is an accurate description of Texas law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28–29, 32,
40–41.

3 The new statute read in full:
“A conviction under Chapter 21, Section 22.011, or Section 22.021, Penal
Code, is supportable on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of the
sexual offense if the victim informed any person, other than the defendant,
of the alleged offense within one year after the date on which the offense
is alleged to have occurred. The requirement that the victim inform an-
other person of an alleged offense does not apply if the victim was younger
than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense.” Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann., Art. 38.07, as amended by Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., Reg.