Wilson, Erin Glynne v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 9, 2006
• Docket: 14-04-01129-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-01128-CR

NO. 14-04-01129-CR

ERIN GLYNNE WILSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 03CR1243 & 03CR1244

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Erin Glynne Wilson appeals two convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child^[1]  on the ground that there was no evidence that he touched the child=s genitals with his sexual organ or his mouth, as alleged.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (iii);(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2005).  We affirm.

In reviewing legal sufficiency, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.  Pribble v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 729-30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 481 (2005).

In this case, the evidence showing the alleged contact included the following.  The complainant=s mother testified that her four year old daughter told her that she went to take a nap with her clothes on but awakened with her clothes being pulled down and appellant licking her Abutt and tee-tee.@  The complainant also stated that she tried to pull her clothes back up but appellant pulled them back down.  The mother inquired whether it was John, the appellant=s stepfather, whom the complainant was referring to, but the complainant reiterated that it was appellant who had licked her, stating, in particular: ANo, not Mr. John.  That boy,@ referring to appellant.

After the complainant made this outcry statement to her mother, she was interviewed by Carmen Crabtree, a forensic interviewer at the Advocacy Center for Children, and the video of that interview was played for the jury.  During the video, the complainant: (1) identified body parts correctly as inquired of her; (2) stated that her babysitter, appellant=s mother, made her take a nap on appellant=s bed and when she woke up her shorts and underwear were pulled down to her knees and appellant was licking her Abutt@ and Aprivate@; (3) marked with a crayon where the Aprivate@ is on a picture provided to her by Crabtree; (4) explained that a boy=s Aspecial part@ is called a tee-tee, that she saw appellant=s body but that she didn=t want to look at his Atee-tee@ and that it looked like her dad=s; (5) stated that appellant=s Atee-tee@ touched her Atee-tee@ and pointed to her sexual organ to show where it was; (6) remarked that it felt like Apee@ when he touched her Atee-tee@ with his; (7) demonstrated, using a boy and girl doll, that both she and appellant were laying on their sides facing each other when appellant put his Atee-tee@ on hers and Amade his tee-tee touch [hers]@; and (8) said that appellant=s Atee-tee@ did not go inside hers but just touched hers and that she saw a drop of pee on it.^[2]

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the foregoing evidence is legally sufficient to prove the alleged touching.  Accordingly, appellant=s issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]           A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault in Cause Nos. 03CR1243 and 03CR1244 and assessed punishment at five years confinement in each cause to run concurrently.

^[2]           Although appellant correctly points out that the complainant, two years later at trial, testified that no part of a boy touched or licked her Atee-tee,@she also stated repeatedly there that she did not want to talk about what happened and that she Aforgot@ what happened.  She testified that something happened to her Atee-tee@ but that she did not want to talk about it.  She stated that after appellant left the room, she heard his mother screaming at him.  Moreover, the complainant testified that she remembered telling Crabtree what appellant did to her and that what she had told Crabtree during the videotaped interview was the truth but that it was too hard for her to say in court.