Jose L. Vasquez v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 29, 2002
Docket07-01-00042-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jose L. Vasquez v. State of Texas (Jose L. Vasquez v. State of Texas) 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
Jose L. Vasquez v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

NO. 07-01-0042-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



APRIL 29, 2002



______________________________



JOSE L. VASQUEZ, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE



_________________________________



FROM THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;



NO. 831576; HONORABLE CAROL DAVIES, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Jose L. Vasquez was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to confinement for 25 years in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. He challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to sustain that conviction by asserting the evidence (1) is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness that he penetrated the female sexual organ of the victim as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2) is legally insufficient to support the conviction under paragraphs one and two of the indictment because the evidence does not show that he placed the victim in fear that serious bodily injury or death would be imminently inflicted on her, (3) is factually insufficient to support the conviction under paragraphs one, two, and three of the indictment, and thus the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, and (4) is legally insufficient to support the conviction under paragraph four of the indictment because there is no evidence that he assaulted the victim anally. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the night of December 18, 1999, the 14-year-old victim, T. F., went to a quinceanera with her friend N. R. At the party, the girls met two boys, who identified themselves as Daniel and Jose. About 1:30 a.m., the girls could not find who brought them to the party so that they could return home. Jose told them his brother would give them a ride, so they got into a station wagon with nine Hispanic males. When the driver went in the opposite direction of the home of N. R., she managed to escape as it stopped at a traffic light and obtained the license plate number. N. R. then ran home and called the police. T. F. tried to crawl out of the back of the station wagon, but someone stopped her. The car was driven down a dirt road and into a field. The men got out of the car, and T. F. tried to run away, but was pushed to the ground and had her clothes torn off. She was then assaulted, according to her testimony, nine times vaginally and three times anally. Some of these assaults occurred simultaneously. One or more of the men also attempted to force her to perform oral sex and ejaculated on her face. During most of the assaults, her eyes were covered, so she could not identify who was assaulting her at any particular moment, but she testified they were laughing during the assaults. The men then got back into the car and left, and T. F. ran to a local motel and called the police. The station wagon was stopped a short time later, and T. F. identified the men as those who assaulted her.

In the first count of the indictment, appellant was charged with intentionally and knowingly causing the penetration of the female sexual organ of the complainant by acts and words placing her in fear that serious bodily injury and death would be imminently inflicted on her. In the second count, he was charged with causing the penetration of the anus of the complainant by the same aggravating acts. In the third and fourth counts, appellant was charged with the penetration of the complainant vaginally and anally by acting in concert with Miguel Lopez and Miguel Flores, who engaged in the conduct described and which occurred during the course of the same criminal episode.

During the trial, one of the other men present that night, Christian Padilla, testified that appellant got on top of the victim, but did not know if he entered her. He further stated that appellant "didn't last long." It is appellant's contention in his first issue that the only evidence he had sexual intercourse with the victim or participated in any way is the testimony of the accomplice witness.

Article 38.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.



Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 1979). There is no dispute among the parties that Padilla is an accomplice witness. In determining whether an accomplice witness's testimony has been corroborated, the accomplice testimony is ignored, and the remaining evidence is examined to determine if it tends to connect the defendant to the offense. Colella v. State, 915 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Munoz v. State, 853 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The corroborative evidence does not need to establish the defendant's guilt of the charged offense nor directly link him to the offense, but is sufficient if it tends to connect him to the offense. Colella, 915 S.W.2d at 838. All facts, both direct and circumstantial, may be considered, and if the combined cumulative weight of the other incriminating evidence tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, then the requirements of article 38.14 have been met. Gosch v. State, 819 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 922, 113 S.Ct. 3035, 125 L.Ed.2d 722 (1993).

The victim was unable to identify appellant as one who assaulted her, covered her eyes, pushed her to the ground, or held her down. However, appellant admitted in his own testimony that he was present in the car and during some of the assaults. He also testified that he heard one of the men say while in the car that they were going to rape her. When arrested, appellant had dirt on his knee and his pants were unfastened, which was similar to the physical appearance of some of the other men in the car, although appellant attempted to explain his appearance by testifying that he went off to urinate, slipped and fell to his knee. There were no positive tests for blood or seminal fluid on appellant's clothing, but his DNA was found on the victim's halter top, chin, and neck, for which appellant could provide no explanation.

Thus, even without Padilla's testimony, appellant was undisputedly connected to the scene of the crime and to some contact with the victim in order that his DNA was found on her. He also had mud on his knee and his pants were unfastened, such as might exist had appellant attempted to recently sexually assault the victim. Proof that the defendant was at or near the scene of the crime at or about the time it happened, along with evidence of other suspicious circumstances may tend to connect the accused to the crime. Richardson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 874

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

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Poindexter v. State
153 S.W.3d 402 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Hooper v. State
214 S.W.3d 9 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Lair v. State
265 S.W.3d 580 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Swearingen v. State
101 S.W.3d 89 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Taylor v. State
106 S.W.3d 827 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Narvaiz v. State
840 S.W.2d 415 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Brown v. State
911 S.W.2d 744 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Evans v. State
202 S.W.3d 158 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Richardson v. State
879 S.W.2d 874 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Thomas v. State
993 S.W.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Roberson v. State
80 S.W.3d 730 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Triplett v. State
292 S.W.3d 205 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Dewberry v. State
4 S.W.3d 735 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Brooks v. State
323 S.W.3d 893 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Figueroa v. State
250 S.W.3d 490 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Rabbani v. State
847 S.W.2d 555 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Navejar v. State
760 S.W.2d 786 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Burdine v. State
719 S.W.2d 309 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jose L. Vasquez v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-l-vasquez-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2002.