Opinion ID: 1476693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for one of his convictions of first degree child abuse. Count III of the indictment charged Williams with penetrating H.T.'s mouth with his penis between on or about April 1, 1999, and February 3, 2000. [4] Williams' contention is that the prosecution failed to introduce any evidence as to when the offense occurred. This court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and making no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. White v. United States, 714 A.2d 115, 118 (D.C.1998) (quoting Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). We will not reverse the jury verdict unless Williams establishes that the government presented `no evidence' upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mihas v. United States, 618 A.2d 197, 200 (D.C.1992) (citation omitted). Rather than make an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence for the elements of the offense, Williams essentially argues that the government constructively amended the indictment or impermissibly varied therefrom by failing to prove a fact asserted in the indictment. Jones v. United States, 716 A.2d 160, 166 (D.C.1998) (citation omitted). [W]hen an indictment charges that the offense occurred `on or about' a certain date, as it did here, a defendant is on notice that a particular date is not critical. The evidence will conform to the indictment in such circumstances if it establishes that the offense was committed on a date reasonably close to the one alleged. Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Ingram v. United States, 592 A.2d 992, 1007 (D.C.1991)). As an initial matter, we note that it is difficult for child witnesses to identify exact times, dates, and locations. See, e.g., Pace v. United States, 705 A.2d 673, 677 (D.C.1998); Jackson v. United States, 503 A.2d 1225, 1226-27 (D.C.1986). In her testimony while being impeached with the CAC videotape, H.T. agreed that Williams put his tail in her mouth, but the prosecutor did not establish a time frame for when this happened. In the CAC statement, however, H.T. relayed that she was three years old when Williams started doing these things to her. H.T. turned three on June 22, 1998, and would, therefore, still have been three on April 1, 1999, when the time period associated with the instant offense began. Thus, because the relevant portion of the CAC statement was properly introduced into evidence, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict as we must, White, supra, we conclude that the government provided sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable mind could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this charged offense occurred during the time period specified in the indictment. Mihas, supra .