Opinion issued June 1, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-05-00815-CR
NO. 01-05-00816-CR
JONATHAN TYRONE ANDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 405th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 03CR3201 and 03CR3202
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jonathan Tyrone Anderson, was charged in two indictments with two separate offenses of indecency with a child by contact. A jury found appellant guilty as charged in both indictments and assessed punishment in both causes at confinement for 15 years. On appeal, appellant presents two issues challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions in each of the causes. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
At trial, the State presented only two witnesses: T.C., the complainant in cause no. 03CR3201, and S.C., the complainant in cause no. 03CR3202. T.C., who was 15 years old at the time of trial, testified that she lived in Hitchcock with her father until she was 12 years old and that they attended Faith Community Church. She testified that she met appellant, whom she know as Brother Jonathan, at church. She testified that the first time appellant touched her breasts was in the kitchen at her father’s house in Hitchcock. She said that appellant asked her for a hug, and when she gave him a hug, appellant grabbed her breast. She testified that he said it was an accident.
T.C. testified that the second time appellant touched her was at his house. She was spending the night with his daughter and slept on the living room couch. She remembered that appellant’s wife was making crawfish, T.C.’s favorite food. She testified that, after everyone had gone to bed, appellant came into the room and touched her. Then he unbuttoned her pajama top and started caressing her breasts. She told him that she was tired. He said “Okay” and left. She testified that, the next morning, she told him she wanted to go home, and appellant’s wife took her home. She stated that, although this happened when she was 12 years old, she didn’t tell anyone because she was afraid that her father would not believe her because he and appellant were best friends. At some point after that, T.C. moved to Dallas to live with her mother.
T.C. testified that she went back to Hitchcock to visit her father. On one such occasion, she took appellant’s daughter to the restroom at church and was waiting outside the restroom when appellant came up and said he missed her. She stated that he then asked for a hug “and he picked me up by my butt and he, like, hugged me.” Appellant testified that the first person she told about this was her sister. At a later time, she told her mother.
S.C., who was 17 years old at the time of trial, lived with her mother in Dallas, but would visit with her father in Hitchcock. She testified that she met appellant through her father, who had lived with appellant for a while. She testified that appellant had molested her numerous times by touching her in places he should not have touched, like her breasts and her genital area. She testified that the first time he touched her was while her father was living with appellant. She said that she was in the garage of appellant’s house and that she and appellant were wrestling. She testified that appellant approached her from behind and grabbed her breast with one hand and her genital area with the other. She said that she pushed him away and thought it was an accident.
S.C. testified that the second occurrence was on a Sunday at the Faith Community Church. She entered the sanctuary, and appellant was the only other person there. She said that she had to pass near him to get to the kitchen, where the other adults were, and as she went by him, he squeezed her “butt.” She testified that he said he was sorry, that it was an accident. She again thought it was an accident.
S.C. testified that the third occurrence was at her mother’s home in Dallas. She stated that her mother was at work and she was at home with her brother. Her brother was in the kitchen and she was in the living room when appellant came into the living room. S.C. testified that she asked to borrow a CD from appellant, and he told her to get it from his truck. She said that she went to the truck to get the CD, and, when she returned, he was outside of the house. As she approached him, he reached out and grabbed her breasts. She said that she pushed him away and went to her room. She testified that this time, she did not know what to think. She also said that he touched her many more times after that.
The next time was during the Christmas holidays in 2001 while she was visiting her father in Hitchcock. She went with her sister to spend the night at appellant’s house because her sister did not want to go there alone. She testified that all the kids were in the living room wrestling, and appellant joined in and pulled S.C. onto his lap and tried to put his finger into her genital area. She said that she resisted him by squeezing her legs tight, and he stopped when all the other kids ran over and started wrestling with him. She testified that she then left the room, and as she was leaving, he said, “We’re going to finish this later.” Later that night, she, her sister, and appellant’s daughter were asleep in the daughter’s room. She woke up to find him in the room and his hands on her breasts inside her pajamas. She looked at him, and he walked out of the room. The next day she went back to her father’s house and cried.
S.C. testified that appellant touched her numerous times after the December 2001 incidents. She testified that the last occurrence was on July 4 when she was again visiting her father in Hitchcock. She had just turned 14 years of age. She stated that appellant came to the door and asked if her father was there. When she told him that her father was at work, he tried to put his hands up her dress. She yelled, “Stop.” Her little brother then came in from outside, and appellant left. Later, appellant’s wife came to take the family, except for S.C.’s father, to the church for a picnic. After the picnic, S.C. was vacuuming the sanctuary when appellant came in. He asked her if she wore lingerie, and she said, “No.” He said, “Maybe you could wear a thong for me sometime” and grabbed her “butt.” She pushed him away and said, “Don’t you have a wife for that?” He answered, “Yes, but I want to see you in it.” Her father came into the room, and she left with him. S.C. testified that that was the last time she had any contact with appellant.
S.C. testified that she did not tell anyone about these events because she was afraid that no one would believe her. She said that she was young, and everyone looked on appellant as a man of God. She said that the first person she told was her mother. She testified that she felt comfortable telling her mother after her mother said that it had happened to her as a child.
Appellant presented three defense witnesses and also testified in his own defense, denying all allegations.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
In reviewing the evidence on legal sufficiency grounds, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the witnesses’ testimony. Jaggers v. State, 125 S.W.3d 661, 671 (Tex App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). The jury may believe all, some, or none of any witness’s testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant contends that there is legally insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the complainants were the only witnesses to the alleged sexual misconduct, there was no physical evidence to support their allegations, and they waited years before making an outcry. He also directs us to the testimony of his witnesses as establishing that the sexual misconduct could not have occurred.
The testimony of a child victim alone is sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated sexual assault or indecency with a child. Perez v. State, 113 S.W.3d 819, 838 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. ref’d); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.07 (Vernon 2005). It is clear from the jury’s verdict that the jury believed the testimony of the complainants and did not believe the testimony of appellant’s witnesses.
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that jury could have found the essential elements of the offenses. Therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgments.
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Keyes, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).