Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 634.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

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

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

559

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

tion; neither should Texas.”
Id., at 14. The historical de-
velopment of Article 38.07 reveals a progressive alleviation
of restrictions on the competency of victim testimony, not
a legislative emphasis on the quantum of evidence needed
to convict.

The version of Article 38.07 applied at Carmell’s trial was
thus, in both effect and purpose, an evidentiary rule gov-
erning the weight that may be given to the testimony of
sexual assault victims who had attained the age of 14. The
Court’s efforts to paint it as something more than that are
detached from the statute’s moorings and are consequently
unpersuasive.

To begin with, it is beyond doubt that Article 38.07 does
not establish an element of the offense. See Love v. State,
499 S. W. 2d 108, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (“[O]utcry is
not one of the elements of the offense charged.”). To con-
vict a defendant of sexual assault in Texas today as before
1993, the prosecution need not introduce the victim’s testi-
mony at all, much less any corroboration of that testimony.
The Court is therefore less than correct in asserting that
“[u]nder the law in effect at the time the acts were com-
mitted, the prosecution’s case was legally insufﬁcient and
petitioner was entitled to a judgment of acquittal, unless the
State could produce both the victim’s testimony and corrobo-
rative evidence.” Ante, at 530. Under both the old and
new versions of the statute, a conviction could be sustained
on the testimony of a single third-party witness, on purely
circumstantial evidence, or in any number of other ways—so
long as the admissible evidence presented is sufﬁcient to
prove all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt.4 And under either version of Article 38.07, of course,

4 Not only is corroborated victim testimony not necessary for a convic-
tion under the former version of Article 38.07, it is not always sufﬁcient.
Under both the old and new versions of the statute, the prosecution’s evi-
dence will not support a conviction unless it is adequate to prove all the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.