Court Opinion

ID: 9401785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 00:00:28.773185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.243079
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60580         Document: 00516785356             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                 FILED
                                                                               June 13, 2023
                                       No. 22-60580
                                     Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Cameron L. Hickman,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:19-CR-88-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Cameron Hickman appeals his conviction of aggravated sexual abuse
   of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 2241(c). He contends that the
   evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the government
   failed to prove that he engaged in a “sexual act” with the victim, as required
   by § 2241(c). Our review is de novo. See United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60580      Document: 00516785356          Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60580

   714 F.3d 306, 313 (5th Cir. 2013).
          The term “sexual act” is defined, in relevant part, as “contact
   between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus,” and “contact
   involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight.” 18 U.S.C.
   § 2246(2)(A). The victim testified that Hickman removed her clothing,
   including her underwear, and that she felt Hickman’s penis inside her body.
   The victim’s mother testified that when she walked in on the assault, the
   victim was wearing underwear.
          We disagree with Hickman’s assertion that the victim’s testimony
   was incredible as a matter of law. A federal conviction may “be based on the
   uncorroborated testimony of a single witness,” United States v. Hoskins,
   628 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir. 1980), and “[w]hether there were inconsisten-
   cies” in the victim’s account “and, if so, how this affected [her] credibility,
   were questions for the jury,” United States v. De Los Santos, 625 F.2d 62, 65
   (5th Cir. 1980). Although the underwear was not collected as evidence, and
   swabs from the victim’s sexual assault exam tested negative for seminal fluid,
   these facts do not foreclose the possibility of penetration.
          We also reject Hickman’s argument that the victim’s testimony was
   incredible because it contradicted the laws of nature. Even if we were to
   accept his contention that penetration through underwear is physically
   impossible, the laws-of-nature “doctrine is used sparingly and should apply
   only where the underlying physical facts are themselves undisputed.” United
   States v. Hutson, No. 92-4324, 1992 WL 366846, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 1992)
   (unpublished but precedential per to 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3). We decline to
   apply the doctrine here, where the pertinent underlying fact of whether the
   victim was wearing underwear during the assault is disputed.
          Considered in the light most favorable to the government, the evi-
   dence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that Hickman committed

                                              2
Case: 22-60580     Document: 00516785356         Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                  No. 22-60580

   a sexual act as required by the statute of conviction. See United States v.
   Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Accordingly,
   the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

                                           3