TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00111-CR
Daniel Matthew Bible, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BLANCO COUNTY NO. 2193, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Daniel Matthew Bible was indicted and convicted of two counts of
indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1). The conviction he
challenges on appeal alleged that he touched the breast of his then-five- or six-year-old daughter,
Luna. 1 The other conviction, which he does not challenge on appeal, alleged that he touched
Luna’s genitals. In his sole issue on appeal, Bible challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
presented to support that he touched Luna’s breast. We affirm the trial court’s judgment
of conviction.
1 Because the victims in this case were minors at the time of the offenses they testified about, we will refer to them and other witnesses by pseudonyms to protect their privacy. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(a)(3). BACKGROUND
Luna, who was nineteen-years old during the trial, testified that her father, Bible,
“touched” her when she was five or six years old—roughly around 2011. She explained that one
day when she was in the first grade, she was at home with her family and was not feeling well.
While her siblings watched a rented movie in the living room, she was laying down in her
parents’ room resting. A few minutes after her siblings left the house to return the movie, Bible
came into the bedroom and laid down next to her so that he was on his side behind her. It started
as “spooning” and “cuddling.” He wrapped his arm around her and across her belly. He moved
his hand up her chest and back down slowly. During her testimony, Luna demonstrated the
motion for the jury. She testified that he first moved his hand over her clothes but then moved it
“back to [her] chest” under her shirt. While touching her chest, Bible moved his hand
“crossways.” When asked if Bible touched her breast, Luna answered, “No.” Luna explained
that “[h]e touched the line where the bra sits. . . he stopped right there.” She testified that he then
moved his hand down to her “bikini line.” At trial she explained that the “bikini area” is
“[w]here the underwear goes.”
During her testimony, the prosecutor gave Luna a yellow highlighter to mark on a
diagram of a human body where Bible touched her. Luna complied. When asked if it was “an
accurate picture of where he touched,” Luna answered, “Yes. That’s correct.” The marked
diagram was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 17 and published to the jury.
2 The prosecutor asked Luna if the top horizontal marker line was representing where Bible moved
his hand across her chest and if the line stopped where Bible stopped touching her. Luna
responded, “Yes. . . . Crossway, how I drew it.” When asked if the bottom yellow line included
her “vagina” and “pubic area,” she answered affirmatively.
Luna testified that after her father touched her, she heard him unzipping his pants.
She told him she had to go to the bathroom and that she would come back. She went to the
bathroom, locked herself in, waited a few seconds, and then flushed the toilet to make it sound
like she was using the bathroom. She then went to her bedroom, closed the door, and waited for
her siblings to get home. Luna testified that eventually her older sister Jamie came into the room
and Luna told her what had happened. Luna testified that she did not tell anyone else until she
told her friend Krystal on Halloween night 2021—about ten years later.
Luna testified that on Halloween 2021, when she was sixteen years old, she and
Krystal were hanging out with Luna’s mom, and her mom’s friend Erin. At this point, her
parents were divorced and shared custody of Luna and her two younger siblings. Luna’s two
3 older siblings were adults at that time. Luna’s mom started questioning why Luna’s younger
sister Chloe—who was eight or nine-years old at that time—was asking to not leave with their
father. Her mom asked Luna if something had happened to Chloe or if Bible had done
something to her. After her mom left the room, Luna told Krystal that maybe something had
happened to Chloe because something had happened to her. Krystal told Luna to tell her mom.
Luna asked Krystal to tell her mom for her.
Krystal testified about learning Luna’s “secret” and telling Luna’s mom for her.
Erin testified that she was present when Krystal told her and Luna’s mom what had happened to
Luna. Erin testified that both Krystal and Luna were frightened, upset, and crying when they
came to her and Luna’s mom to tell their “secrets.” Krystal told them that Bible had touched
Luna “inappropriately.”
Luna’s mom testified that when Krystal told her that Bible had touched Luna
inappropriately, she immediately went to speak with Luna. Luna was crying and rocking while
telling her mom that the night of the abuse she was in bed lying there asleep and Bible had
crawled on top of her after touching her inappropriately, and that she was able to get away by
saying she needed to go to the bathroom. Luna’s mom, who works as a nurse, testified that she
did not ask Luna for additional details because she believed her role was to protect and not to
investigate. However, she called Jamie to discuss Luna’s outcry and Jamie replied, “I know,
Mom. It happened to me too.” Although Luna’s mom attempted to convince Jamie to make an
outcry to law enforcement, she was initially unwilling to discuss her own abuse except with her
mother and Luna.
4 Luna’s mom went to the police station the next day to report what Luna told her.
Two days later, she took Luna, Chloe, and her youngest child to a children’s advocacy center for
forensic interviews. No charges were brought against Bible regarding Luna’s siblings.
Luna’s mom testified that she found out that Bible was a registered sex offender
sometime after they started dating but before they got married. She testified that she and Bible
divorced in 2018, about three years prior to Luna’s Halloween outcry, and that custody issues
had already been settled and decided. She agreed on cross-examination that her youngest child
was in the process of deciding if he wanted to live full time with Bible or continue splitting time
between both parents. She testified that at that time she and Bible split custody evenly but that
Luna had stopped going to visit her father unless other adult family members were going to
be there.
Forensic interviewer Lana Niemeyer testified that she interviewed Luna at the
children’s advocacy center. She testified that Luna disclosed to her that Bible had touched her
inappropriately when she was five or six years old and in the first or second grade. He touched
her chest area first over and then under her shirt. He touched on her “bra line” and moved his
hand “back and forth on her bra line.” Luna explained to Niemeyer that she was not wearing a
bra at that age. Niemeyer testified that Luna demonstrated with her hand where Bible had
touched her. Niemeyer mimicked Luna’s gesturing for the jury and testified that it included “the
breast.” Luna told Niemeyer that after touching her bra line, Bible moved his hand down under
her underwear to touch her “bikini area.” Luna told Niemeyer that babies come out of the
“bikini area.”
Rebecca Broussard testified that she was the forensic nurse that examined Luna at
the children’s advocacy center. Nurse Broussard defined “breasts” as “anywhere on the chest
5 where you would find breast tissue.” She explained that there is breast tissue on a five- or six-
year-old child, and that although it is still developing, it is still considered the breast. When
asked if breast tissue would be around the nipples on a five-year-old, Nurse Broussard responded
affirmatively. She testified that Luna did not mention her “breasts” during the forensic exam.
However, when asked if the highlighted area on State’s Exhibit 17 included “breasts,” Nurse
Broussard replied, “Yes.” She testified that it is not unusual for a patient to remember some
details and forget others because of the way their brain remembers the trauma.
Lisa Carson, a licensed professional counselor, testified as an expert witness
about the effects of trauma on memory and the frequency and causes of delayed outcries. She
testified that trauma could cause inconsistencies with memory regarding the traumatic event.
She also testified that traumatic events cause different victims to have different “affect”—the
way they appear and their facial expressions. She testified that delayed outcries are common and
can be caused by fear, by a close relationship with the perpetrator, or by parental divorce.
The State presented and the trial court admitted extraneous offense evidence
allegedly committed by Bible against three other victims—all family members of Bible who
were children at the time of their alleged abuse by Bible. Bible’s younger cousin, Rachel,
testified that Bible is seven or eight years older than her. She testified that Bible sexually abused
her multiple times when she was eight to twelve years old. She testified that during the first
incident, Bible laid on top of her while they were both naked and rubbed his penis on her until he
ejaculated. Bible abused her the same way “every chance he got,” which was when his family
would come in town to visit at her grandfather’s house. When she was about eleven years old
the incidents changed, and Bible attempted to penetrate her anus with his penis twice on separate
occasions and penetrated her vagina with his penis on two separate occasions. After the second
6 vaginal penetration, she became afraid that Bible may start abusing her younger sister. Rachel
outcried to her mother. She testified that she was taken by law enforcement to a children’s
advocacy center and gave an interview, but there was no prosecution. She testified that she was
told by her parents and Bible’s parents that it was “a family matter” and not a law enforcement
matter and that she and Bible would be sent to counseling.
Another alleged victim was Bible’s cousin Anna. 2 The trial court admitted
exhibits that documented that in 1995 Bible pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child
and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for ten years. Anna’s mom testified that
Anna was twelve years old at the time of that offense. Although Bible’s age at that time is not
reflected in the record, Rachel—who is seven or eight years younger than Bible—testified that
she and Anna were friends at school. Court documents supporting his discharge from his
deferred adjudication probation were also admitted. Lieutenant Victoria McMain testified that
while investigating Luna’s allegations of sexual abuse against Bible, she learned that Bible is a
registered sex offender.
Jamie, Luna’s older sister, testified that Bible sexually abused her multiple times
during her childhood. She did not remember at what age it started, but it ended when she was
going into the fifth or sixth grade. She testified that it started with Bible rubbing her vagina area
over her clothes and then progressed over time to rubbing under her clothes. After that, he
progressed to penetrating her vagina with his finger. She testified that once or twice he used a
sex toy on her over her clothes. She testified that she did not tell anyone because she was afraid
to be taken away from her family.
2 Anna’s mother testified that Anna wanted to testify at the trial but had recently passed away. 7 Bible presented two witnesses to support his defensive theory that Luna’s mom
had fabricated the allegations against Bible and had manipulated Luna into falsely outcrying
against him. One witness was Bible’s uncle, who testified that he overheard Luna’s mom
threaten Bible that “allegations” would be made if he did not keep paying her bills after they
divorced and that she brought up his criminal record while making the threat. The other witness
was a man unrelated to and unfamiliar with the Bible family, who testified that he regularly
rented movies during the time period that the alleged sexual abuse of Luna occurred, and that
there was nowhere in town to rent movies at that time. 3
The State called Luna’s older brother as a rebuttal witness. He testified that he
was unfamiliar with any of the allegations at issue in the case but confirmed that he would drive
to rent movies in town around the relevant time.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury found Bible guilty of both counts of
indecency with a child. The jury assessed punishment at twenty-years’ imprisonment for each
count. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.33(a), 21.11(d). The trial court ordered the sentences to
run consecutively.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined in a hypothetically correct jury charge, which is “one that accurately sets out the law, is
authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or
unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular
3 During closing statements, defense counsel argued to the jury that this testimony regarding the unavailability of movie rentals in town at the time of the alleged abuse was evidence that supported the defensive theory that Luna’s story was made up because, counsel reasoned, it demonstrated that she lied about her siblings going to return a rented movie. 8 offense for which the defendant was tried.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1997). “When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider
whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “This standard requires the appellate court to defer ‘to the
responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). “We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
that of the factfinder.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007)). Although factfinders “may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence,” they
are permitted to “draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as each inference is
supported by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. (citing Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 757
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). “We
presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the
verdict, and we defer to that resolution.” Id. (citing Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012)). This is because the factfinders are “the exclusive judges of the facts, the
credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony.” Id. (citing Brooks
v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). “Direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a
conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to
support the conviction.” Id. (citing Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2015)).
9 DISCUSSION
In his sole issue on appeal, Bible contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support that he touched Luna’s breast. Specifically, he contends that Luna’s reply of “no” when
asked if Bible touched her breast, renders any other evidence of breast touching insufficient
when she never told anyone that Bible touched her “breast.”
The Texas Penal Code provides that:
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex and regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact[.]
....
(c) In this section, “sexual contact” means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child[.]
Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. The term “breast” is not defined in the statute. See id.; Chambers
v. State, 502 S.W.3d 891, 894 n.6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (noting that “breast”
is not statutorily defined in indecency statute). Statutorily undefined terms may be defined as
typical and ordinary usage allows, and jurors may give them “any meaning which is acceptable
in common parlance.” Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769, 771–72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
While there was no testimony that Luna ever used the word “breast” when
describing Bible’s abuse of her, there was evidence presented that her breast was touched by
Bible. It is not required that child sexual assault victims, including adult witnesses testifying
10 about their abuse as children, use the same words as the statute. Arroyo v. State, 559 S.W.3d
484, 488–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (holding that evidence was sufficient to support breast
touching when adult witness testified that when she was nine-years-old, defendant moved his
hand “down [her] chest,” that she “knew [it] was wrong,” and that abuse progressed to touching
her vagina); Clark v. State, 558 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (explaining that
evidence can be sufficient to show sexual touching even if child victim uses language to describe
their body part that is different than used in relevant statute). As the Court of Criminal Appeals
has explained, an adult witness describing events from their childhood may be “more likely to
refer to a child’s undeveloped breast area as the ‘chest.’” Arroyo, 559 S.W.3d at 489. Although
Luna responded “no” when asked if Bible touched her “breast,” the jury could have reasonably
inferred that Luna did not consider that undeveloped area on her five-year-old chest to be a
“breast.” 4 See id. However, “[t]he modern definition of ‘sexual contact’ applicable to the
indecency offense contains no references to age or gender” and, thus, “[u]nder the current
statutory scheme, a ‘breast’ does not have to belong to a female or be developed.” Id. at 488.
Luna demonstrated for the jury, without objection, how Bible touched her when
he moved his hand up to her “chest,” and she described for the jury that he moved his hand
“crossways” on her “bra line.” See Rogers v. State, 756 S.W.2d 332, 337 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d) (concluding that reference in record to gestures by witness
supported guilty verdict when defendant neither requested that record reflect substance of
4 Even if the jurors viewed Luna’s response of “no” as a direct denial of the contact with her breast rather than a difference in how she defines “breast,” “the jury is entitled to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and can choose to believe all, some, or none of their testimony.” Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); cf. Saldana v. State, 287 S.W.3d 43, 60 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008, pet. ref’d) (explaining that “when a witness recants prior testimony, it is up to the fact finder to determine whether to believe the original statement or the recantation”). 11 gestures nor objected to them.). Although we do not know how Luna moved her hand while
demonstrating, we must view this evidence as supporting the jury’s verdict. See Finley v. State,
449 S.W.3d 145, 150 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014), aff’d, 484 S.W.3d 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)
(explaining that “we are to view such demonstrations as supporting the finding of guilt, even
when they are not transcribed in the record”); Morales v. State, 293 S.W.3d 901, 909 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. ref’d) (noting that jury is in better position to evaluate witnesses
especially when there were physical demonstrations or gestures given in jury’s presence but not
explicitly transcribed or detailed in record).
Further, the forensic interviewer, Niemeyer, testified that Luna gestured during
the forensic interview to where Bible had touched her. Niemeyer mimicked Luna’s gesturing for
the jury and testified that the gestured-to area included “the breast.” As the outcry witness,
Niemeyer’s testimony is substantive evidence in support of the jury’s verdict. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 38.072; Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 810–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Additionally, Luna drew lines on a diagram to show where Bible touched her and testified that it
was accurate. Nurse Broussard, who had not been present for Luna’s testimony, testified that the
highlighted line on State’s Exhibit 17 was touching a breast. Further, the record indicates that
Bible was present at trial for the jury to see the size of his hand and determine whether his hand
moving along the line drawn by Luna would have touched her breast.
Based on the cumulative evidence presented at trial, we cannot conclude that no
rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bible touched Luna’s “breast.”
See Arroyo, 559 S.W.3d at 489 (concluding that evidence was sufficient to support “breast”
touching when adult victim of child sexual abuse described her “chest” being touched in manner
that was “wrong” and in context of other sexual misconduct); Gonzalez Soto v. State,
12 267 S.W.3d 327, 334 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2008, no pet.) (concluding evidence
was sufficient to support indecency conviction when victim marked “with an ‘X’ over the female
breast,” to demonstrate where he touched her on her “chest”); see also Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breast (last visited Feb. 28, 2026) (including as
one of four definitions for “breast” when used as noun, “the fore or ventral part of the body
between the neck and the abdomen”). Further, the jury could infer from the totality of Bible’s
conduct—including moving his hand down to her genitals and then unzipping his pants—that
touching Luna’s breast was done with the intent to arouse and gratify his sexual desire. See
Arroyo, 559 S.W.3d at 489 (concluding that evidence was sufficient “for a rational jury to
conclude that [defendant] touched [victim’s] breast on three occasions and that the conduct of
touching [her] breast was done with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of a person”).
The jury also heard evidence of extraneous sexual offenses allegedly committed against three
other victims who were related to Bible and children at the time of the abuse. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 38.37, § 2 (allowing admission of extraneous sexual offenses against children in
trial of defendant charged with indecency offenses “for any bearing the evidence has on relevant
matters, including the character of the defendant and acts performed in conformity with the
character of the defendant”).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we find that
there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of indecency with a child by contact with Luna’s breast. See Arroyo, 559 S.W.3d at
489; Gonzalez Soto, 267 S.W.3d at 334. We overrule Bible’s sole issue.
13 CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump
Affirmed
Filed: March 25, 2026
Do Not Publish