Billy Richardson v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Billy Richardson v. State

DecidedOctober 23, 2003

Docket11-02-00291-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Billy Richardson v. State (Billy Richardson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Billy Richardson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Billy Richardson

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00291-CR -- Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted Billy Richardson of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14. The jury then assessed punishment at confinement for 35 years and a $5,000 fine. We affirm.

Appellant presents three points of error. In the third point of error, appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. In order to determine if the evidence is factually sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether the evidence supporting guilt is so weak as to render the conviction clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or whether the evidence supporting guilt, although adequate when taken alone, is so greatly outweighed by the overwhelming weight of contrary evidence as to render the conviction clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex.Cr.App.2002); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.Cr.App.2001); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).

The record shows that, along with others, appellant and the victim, his 13-year-old cousin, were staying with their grandmother at the time of the offense. The victim was visiting her grandmother for a week. The victim testified that she and appellant=s sister, Brittany Scott, slept in the same bed. According to the victim, she woke up one night because she felt appellant on top of her. Appellant had moved the victim=s panties over to the side and was forcing his private part into hers. The victim pushed appellant off, and he left the room. After unsuccessfully trying to wake Brittany up, the victim went into the den crying. She told a cousin and her grandmother that appellant had Aput his hands on@ her. The victim=s grandmother talked to appellant and instructed the victim not to tell her mother.

After she returned home the next week, the victim experienced discomfort and discharge in her vaginal area. She told her mother in detail what had happened. The victim=s mother took her to the doctor, and the victim was diagnosed with a bacterial infection that Awas sexualin nature.@

The victim=s mother testified as an outcry witness; her testimony was similar to the victim=s. The victim=s mother also testified that appellant called her and initially denied that anything had happened but then admitted that he had committed the offense and apologized for it. Furthermore, the State introduced appellant=s handwritten statement into evidence. In his statement, appellant stated that he and the victim had Avilontary (sic) sex@ in Brittany=s room.

Both Brittany and the grandmother testified. They testified that Brittany was a light sleeper and that she would have been awakened if appellant had gotten into the bed with her and the victim. The victim=s grandmother testified that the victim woke her up and told her that appellant Atried@ to touch her and pull her underwear down but that he did not touch her. Appellant told his grandmother that he did not touch the victim. According to their grandmother, there was no blood, semen, or any stains on the sheets where the victim had been sleeping.

After reviewing all of the evidence in a neutral light, we hold that the evidence supporting the verdict is neither too weak nor so greatly outweighed by contrary evidence as to render the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Therefore, the evidence is factually sufficient to support appellant=s conviction. The third point of error is overruled.

In the first point, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his Amotion for mistrial@ after the prosecutor improperly commented upon his failure to testify.^[1] During the State=s closing argument at the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the prosecutor made the following argument:

I don=t care if the Defense wants to call this [appellant=s written statement] a trump card or not. That makes no difference to me, because what I=m asking you to do is to consider all the evidence that you=ve heard and to follow it.

You know, had this statement said something else, don=t you know that the argument would have been, well, guess what? He said he didn=t do it. But now the statement now that he gave, a voluntary statement, he is admitting that he did it. What evidence have you heard? What have you heard at all from the Defense to refute or even challenge what it was that he put in his statement?

Defense counsel objected that the State was commenting on appellant=s failure to testify. The prosecutor responded that she was “talking about the statement,” and the trial court overruled the objection.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI