Opinion ID: 1060454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-502, proof of an unlawful sexual penetration of a victim during which the defendant causes bodily injury to the victim establishes the crime of aggravated rape. [2] Bowles asserts that because Dobbs did not testify with certainty that there was some form of penetration, the aggravated rape conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction requires us to determine whether, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 599 (Tenn.1999), see also Tenn. R.App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Furthermore, [q]uestions about the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence are resolved by the trier of fact, and this Court does not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. State v. Pierce, 23 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn.2000). Sexual penetration is defined as any intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal openings of the victim's ... body.... Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-501(7) (1997). This Court has recognized that: [t]here is ... `sexual penetration' in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male. It is not necessary that the vagina be entered or that the hymen be ruptured; the entering of the vulva or labia is sufficient. Hart v. State, 21 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tenn.2000)(citing Walker v. State, 197 Tenn. 452, 273 S.W.2d 707, 711 (Tenn.1954)); see also 3 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 278 (15th ed.1995) (noting that entry of the anterior of the female genital organ, known as the vulva or labia, is sufficient penetration for forcible rape or statutory rape; it is not necessary that the vagina itself be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured.). The jury, in finding Bowles guilty of aggravated rape, found that a sexual penetration had occurred. The occurrence of penetration, even though penetration is statutorily defined, is a question of fact. Thus, if the evidence is such that any rational trier of fact could have found penetration beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must be deemed sufficient. In her testimony, Dobbs clearly described how Bowles pressed his penis against her vulva with his hand and was only prevented from full penetration by his failure to achieve an erection. The State introduced evidence of the location and structure of the vulva, which evidence, in conjunction with Dobbs' description of the assault, enabled the jury to determine whether the facts supported a finding that penetration had occurred. Although Dobbs's testimony was not entirely consistent regarding whether a penetration occurred, the jury obviously resolved the inconsistencies in the State's favor and concluded that Bowles's acts involved invasion of the genital opening. This Court will not re-weigh that determination. Pierce, 23 S.W.3d at 293. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the evidence supports a finding of penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.