MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00886-CR
George BARNES, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR12209 Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2011
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED
After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant George Barnes guilty of aggravated
sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. Barnes pled true to an
enhancement allegation and the trial court sentenced him to confinement for life. On appeal,
Barnes contends the evidence is legally insufficient. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as
reformed. 04-10-00886-CR
Before we can begin our review of Barnes’s allegation, we must determine what offenses
Barnes was actually convicted of in the trial court. Barnes contends he was convicted of two
counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Counts III and IV of the indictment, and a single
count of indecency with a child, Count V of the indictment. The State argues Barnes is incorrect,
asserting he was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Count II of the
indictment, and two counts of indecency of a child, Counts IV and V of the indictment. The
dispute is whether Count IV of the indictment alleged aggravated sexual assault of a child or
indecency with a child by contact. It is critical to make this determination because Barnes
challenges only the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under Count IV,
but does so based on the assumption he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Count IV of the indictment alleges Barnes “caused the FINGER of THE DEFENDANT
to CONTACT the SEXUAL ORGAN of [the victim], a child who was younger than 14 year
[sic].” Clearly, Count IV does not allege aggravated sexual assault because that offense requires
more than mere contact; it requires actual penetration. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.021(a)(1)(B)(1) (West 2011) (providing in pertinent part that person commits offense of
aggravated sexual assault if he “causes the penetration of . . . the sexual organ of a child by any
means.”). Thus, Count IV alleges indecency with a child by contact, though with more detail
than ordinarily contained or needed in an indictment. See id. § 21.11(a)(1), (c)(1) (providing in
pertinent part that person commits offense of indecency with child by contact if, “with a child
younger than 17 years of age . . . the person . . . engages in sexual contact with the child,” and
defining “sexual contact” as “any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of
. . . any part of the genitals of a child.”); see also State v. Barbernell, 257 S.W.3d 248, 250 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (holding evidentiary matters need not be alleged in charging instrument).
-2- 04-10-00886-CR
Accordingly, we hold Count IV alleges indecency with a child by contact, not aggravated sexual
assault of a child. We will, therefore, review Barnes’s challenge as a legal sufficiency challenge
to sustain his conviction for the offense of indecency with a child by contact as alleged in Count
IV of the indictment.
We note that in its judgments, the trial court incorrectly states Barnes was convicted
under Counts IV and V with aggravated sexual assault of a child. The State requests that we
reform the judgments to accurately reflect the offenses for which Barnes was tried and convicted.
BACKGROUND
N.J. testified she was acquainted with Barnes and he came to her home on several
occasions to help her with certain projects, e.g., cleaning out the garage, and sometimes spent the
night. 1 At the time Barnes visited her home, N.J. lived in the house with two of her children,
including her then six-year-old daughter J.J. According to N.J., around the time of Barnes’s
visits, her daughter J.J. out cried to her, claiming Barnes had sexually assaulted her. Although
J.J. told her mother about the alleged sexual assault in March 2009, N.J. waited several months
before contacting authorities, claiming she was trying to obtain more information about Barnes.
At trial, the defense pointed out it was only when N.J. was under investigation by Child
Protective Services that she reported J.J.’s outcry against Barnes.
At trial, J.J., who was now eight years old, testified she had known Barnes when she was
six years old and did not like him because he was mean and “touched [her] where he wasn’t
supposed to.” She specifically stated Barnes touched her “[i]n my private,” explaining her
“private” was “[i]n front.” Using anatomically correct dolls, J.J. showed the court how and
where Barnes touched her. J.J. said Barnes touched her more than once–at least once with her
clothes off and three other times with her clothes on. When he touched her with her clothes off, 1 N.J. denied having a sexual relationship with Barnes and denied using drugs or alcohol.
-3- 04-10-00886-CR
J.J. was sleeping in her mother’s bed. J.J. stated Barnes, who was naked, touched her with his
“hand and his middle,” demonstrating what she meant by middle with the doll. J.J. also stated
Barnes put his “middle” “[i]n mine” and “[i]t hurt.” J.J. also stated Barnes touched her in the
“same place” with his hand when her clothes were on. J.J. testified no one other than Barnes
ever touched her in the ways she described.
J.J.’s brother, A.J., also testified. He stated Barnes was a friend of his mother’s and
sometimes visited their home. A.J. recalled a time when he was sleeping in his mother’s bed
with J.J. and awoke to find Barnes in the room. A.J. testified he saw Barnes touching J.J.’s
“private.” A.J. admitted on cross-examination that J.J. had her clothes on when this happened
and he could not see her body parts. However, he stated Barnes had his hand inside J.J.’s
clothing “near her private” and in “her front.”
J.J. was examined by two doctors and both testified at trial. Both doctors stated they
observed vaginal redness and a labial adhesion. Dr. Nancy Kellogg explained these conditions
were not necessarily caused by sexual abuse, but sexual abuse might have caused them. Dr.
Amy Gavril testified J.J. reported Barnes touched her genitals with his hands. Dr. Gavril also
testified J.J. stated during the interview that there was digital-vaginal penetration and oral-genital
penetration.
Barnes was ultimately arrested and indicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault
of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact. The trial court found him guilty
of one count of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child by contact.
After the trial court rendered its judgment, Barnes perfected this appeal.
-4- 04-10-00886-CR
ANALYSIS
Barnes raises a single issue, claiming the evidence was legally insufficient to support a
finding of guilt as to Count IV of the indictment, which we have already determined was an
allegation of indecency with a child by contact. More specifically, Barnes claims there was no
evidence to establish Barnes caused J.J.’s female sexual organ to contact his hand. The State
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00886-CR
George BARNES, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR12209 Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2011
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED
After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant George Barnes guilty of aggravated
sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. Barnes pled true to an
enhancement allegation and the trial court sentenced him to confinement for life. On appeal,
Barnes contends the evidence is legally insufficient. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as
reformed. 04-10-00886-CR
Before we can begin our review of Barnes’s allegation, we must determine what offenses
Barnes was actually convicted of in the trial court. Barnes contends he was convicted of two
counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Counts III and IV of the indictment, and a single
count of indecency with a child, Count V of the indictment. The State argues Barnes is incorrect,
asserting he was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Count II of the
indictment, and two counts of indecency of a child, Counts IV and V of the indictment. The
dispute is whether Count IV of the indictment alleged aggravated sexual assault of a child or
indecency with a child by contact. It is critical to make this determination because Barnes
challenges only the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction under Count IV,
but does so based on the assumption he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Count IV of the indictment alleges Barnes “caused the FINGER of THE DEFENDANT
to CONTACT the SEXUAL ORGAN of [the victim], a child who was younger than 14 year
[sic].” Clearly, Count IV does not allege aggravated sexual assault because that offense requires
more than mere contact; it requires actual penetration. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.021(a)(1)(B)(1) (West 2011) (providing in pertinent part that person commits offense of
aggravated sexual assault if he “causes the penetration of . . . the sexual organ of a child by any
means.”). Thus, Count IV alleges indecency with a child by contact, though with more detail
than ordinarily contained or needed in an indictment. See id. § 21.11(a)(1), (c)(1) (providing in
pertinent part that person commits offense of indecency with child by contact if, “with a child
younger than 17 years of age . . . the person . . . engages in sexual contact with the child,” and
defining “sexual contact” as “any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of
. . . any part of the genitals of a child.”); see also State v. Barbernell, 257 S.W.3d 248, 250 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (holding evidentiary matters need not be alleged in charging instrument).
-2- 04-10-00886-CR
Accordingly, we hold Count IV alleges indecency with a child by contact, not aggravated sexual
assault of a child. We will, therefore, review Barnes’s challenge as a legal sufficiency challenge
to sustain his conviction for the offense of indecency with a child by contact as alleged in Count
IV of the indictment.
We note that in its judgments, the trial court incorrectly states Barnes was convicted
under Counts IV and V with aggravated sexual assault of a child. The State requests that we
reform the judgments to accurately reflect the offenses for which Barnes was tried and convicted.
BACKGROUND
N.J. testified she was acquainted with Barnes and he came to her home on several
occasions to help her with certain projects, e.g., cleaning out the garage, and sometimes spent the
night. 1 At the time Barnes visited her home, N.J. lived in the house with two of her children,
including her then six-year-old daughter J.J. According to N.J., around the time of Barnes’s
visits, her daughter J.J. out cried to her, claiming Barnes had sexually assaulted her. Although
J.J. told her mother about the alleged sexual assault in March 2009, N.J. waited several months
before contacting authorities, claiming she was trying to obtain more information about Barnes.
At trial, the defense pointed out it was only when N.J. was under investigation by Child
Protective Services that she reported J.J.’s outcry against Barnes.
At trial, J.J., who was now eight years old, testified she had known Barnes when she was
six years old and did not like him because he was mean and “touched [her] where he wasn’t
supposed to.” She specifically stated Barnes touched her “[i]n my private,” explaining her
“private” was “[i]n front.” Using anatomically correct dolls, J.J. showed the court how and
where Barnes touched her. J.J. said Barnes touched her more than once–at least once with her
clothes off and three other times with her clothes on. When he touched her with her clothes off, 1 N.J. denied having a sexual relationship with Barnes and denied using drugs or alcohol.
-3- 04-10-00886-CR
J.J. was sleeping in her mother’s bed. J.J. stated Barnes, who was naked, touched her with his
“hand and his middle,” demonstrating what she meant by middle with the doll. J.J. also stated
Barnes put his “middle” “[i]n mine” and “[i]t hurt.” J.J. also stated Barnes touched her in the
“same place” with his hand when her clothes were on. J.J. testified no one other than Barnes
ever touched her in the ways she described.
J.J.’s brother, A.J., also testified. He stated Barnes was a friend of his mother’s and
sometimes visited their home. A.J. recalled a time when he was sleeping in his mother’s bed
with J.J. and awoke to find Barnes in the room. A.J. testified he saw Barnes touching J.J.’s
“private.” A.J. admitted on cross-examination that J.J. had her clothes on when this happened
and he could not see her body parts. However, he stated Barnes had his hand inside J.J.’s
clothing “near her private” and in “her front.”
J.J. was examined by two doctors and both testified at trial. Both doctors stated they
observed vaginal redness and a labial adhesion. Dr. Nancy Kellogg explained these conditions
were not necessarily caused by sexual abuse, but sexual abuse might have caused them. Dr.
Amy Gavril testified J.J. reported Barnes touched her genitals with his hands. Dr. Gavril also
testified J.J. stated during the interview that there was digital-vaginal penetration and oral-genital
penetration.
Barnes was ultimately arrested and indicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault
of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact. The trial court found him guilty
of one count of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child by contact.
After the trial court rendered its judgment, Barnes perfected this appeal.
-4- 04-10-00886-CR
ANALYSIS
Barnes raises a single issue, claiming the evidence was legally insufficient to support a
finding of guilt as to Count IV of the indictment, which we have already determined was an
allegation of indecency with a child by contact. More specifically, Barnes claims there was no
evidence to establish Barnes caused J.J.’s female sexual organ to contact his hand. The State
counters the evidence was sufficient, but asks this court to reform the judgment to correctly
reflect that the conviction pursuant to Count IV of the indictment was a conviction for indecency
with a child by contact, not aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Standard of Review
We review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a criminal conviction under the
Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard of review. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The proper question for this
court is whether considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the
factfinder was “rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks, 323
S.W.3d at 899. It is the factfinder’s province “to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to
weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.”
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. The factfinder is the “sole judge of the weight of the evidence and
may choose to believe all, some, or none of it.” Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995) (en banc); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.13 (West 2007)
(providing that “[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code, the jury is the exclusive judge of the
facts”); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.04 (West Supp. 2010) (providing that “jury, in all
cases, is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, and of the weight to be given to the testimony.”)
In the event of a guilty verdict, we must presume the trier of fact resolved conflicts in favor of
-5- 04-10-00886-CR
the State and defer to that determination. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Our duty under this standard is thus limited to ensuring that “the evidence presented
actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged.”
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Application
To prove Barnes committed the offense of indecency with a child by contact, as alleged
in Count IV of the indictment, the State had to prove Barnes touched J.J.’s genitals. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1), (c)(1). If Barnes touched J.J.’s genitals, even through her
clothing, he is guilty of the charged offense. See id.
As noted above, J.J. testified Barnes “touched [her] where he wasn’t supposed to.” She
said Barnes touched her “[i]n my private,” and explained her “private” was “[i]n front.” Using
anatomically correct dolls, J.J. showed the court how and where Barnes touched her. J.J. said
Barnes touched her “private” more than once, including three times when her clothes were on.
J.J. testified Barnes touched her in the “middle” with his hand when her clothes were on.
The testimony of a child victim alone is sufficient to support a conviction for indecency
with a child. E.g., Hiatt v. State, 319 S.W.3d 115, 121 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet.
ref’d); Gonzalez Soto v. State, 267 S.W.3d 327, 332 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.);
Glockzin v. State, 220 S.W.3d 140, 147 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, pet. ref’d); Perez v. State, 113
S.W.3d 819, 838 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. State, 268
S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Moreover, child victims of sexual crimes are given great
latitude when testifying and are not expected “to testify with the same clarity and ability as is
expected of a mature and capable adult.” Hiatt, 319 S.W.3d at 121 (citing Villalon v. State, 791
S.W.2d 130, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). Given her age, J.J. provided a reasonably detailed
-6- 04-10-00886-CR
description of the sexual abuse. She gave specific information regarding the time frame,
information as to where the abuse occurred, and the manner in which she was abused. The trial
judge was able to observe J.J. on the stand under direct and cross examination.
Accordingly, we hold J.J. provided sufficient evidence to establish Barnes committed the
offense of indecency with a child by contact. We overrule his sole issue.
CONCLUSION
There was sufficient evidence to prove Barnes committed the offense of indecency with a
child by contact as charged in Count IV of the indictment. With regard to the State’s request that
we reform the judgment, the record reflects Barnes was found guilty of the offenses alleged in
Counts III, IV, and V of the indictment. Our review of the indictment reveals Count III alleged
aggravated sexual assault of a child, Count IV alleged indecency with a child by contact, and
Count V alleged indecency with a child by contact. However, the judgments as to Counts IV and
V incorrectly indicate Barnes was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Therefore,
we agree with the State that the judgments must be reformed. We order the judgments as to
Counts IV and V reformed to reflect convictions under Counts IV and V for indecency with a
child by contact, enhanced because of Barnes’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraph. As
reformed, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-7-