Opinion issued October 24, 2002
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
01-01-01124-CR
RICARDO RUIZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 865058 and 865057
O P I N I O N
Appellant, Ricardo Ruiz, pleaded not guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. (1) The jury found him guilty of both offenses and assessed punishment for each offense at 20 years' confinement. In one point of error, appellant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
Facts
In 1997, eight-year-old C. P. was living in Pasadena, Texas with her mother, three brothers, and appellant, her mother's boyfriend. Three weeks after he had moved in, appellant started assaulting C. P. He would wake her up in the middle of the night and take her to another room while everyone else slept. He would pull down her underwear and touch her vagina with his hands, penis, and tongue. Sometimes, he would lay her down on the floor, and he would put his "private" in her "private," which "hurt." He also forced C. P. to perform oral sex on him. C. P. testified she would have "white stuff" on her hands and in her "private." The ejaculate got on her hands when she spit into her hands after performing oral sex on appellant. C. P. testified she was scared because appellant told her not to tell her mother or he would hurt them both. This abuse continued almost every night for two years.
On October 4, 2000, C. P.'s family fled to a women's shelter. Sacha Cain, a counselor at the shelter, testified that, when she was conducting a group discussion on sexual abuse, she noticed a change in C. P.'s behavior. Cain met with C. P. privately after the session, and C. P. told her that appellant "would do bad things to her and that he would put things inside her." C. P.'s mother was informed of the abuse; C.P., her mother, and Cain reported the assaults.
C. P. underwent a physical examination, which revealed normal results with non-specific thickened hymen that could have represented either a scar or a normal variant. The results did not rule out the possibility of abuse.
Legal Sufficiency
In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Although our analysis considers all evidence presented at trial, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Appellant argues that there was no corroborating evidence of the assaults and that C. P.'s physical examination was normal. Considering the evidence most favorable to the verdict, however, we hold a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See id.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment.
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Keyes, and Duggan. (2)
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
1. 2.