Opinion ID: 1860418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: One Count of Third-Degree Sodomy

Text: Appellant next argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of third-degree sodomy and, thus, the trial court should have granted Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on this charge. We disagree. At trial, C.O. testified to two counts of sodomy, one oral and one anal. Appellant argues that the oral sodomy testified to referred to an encounter which was outside of the time frame specified by the indictment. Admittedly, from review of the record, it appears that C.O. did not testify to the exact date of the oral sodomy; however, it seems C.O. got confused on the stand and did not remember the exact date of this incident. [4] We note, however, that when the prosecutor asked her if she ever gave Appellant oral sex in his car in the specified time frame, she answered in the affirmative. Thus, pursuant to our holding in Stoker, this evidence is sufficient to support the charge of third-degree sodomy. 828 S.W.2d at 624. This is because it is the jury's responsibility to weigh the credibility of C.O.'s testimony. Clement Brothers, 314 S.W.2d at 530. A rational trier of fact could have believed the oral sodomy occurred during the time frame charged in the indictment. Thus, when C.O.'s testimony is taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a directed verdict was not warranted as there was sufficient evidence of third-degree sodomy. Therefore, Appellant's claim is without merit.