MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00719-CR
Edward H. ESPARZA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009CR7270
Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2011
AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant guilty on six counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and
four counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. The jury assessed punishment at twelve
years’ confinement. In a single issue on appeal, appellant asserts the evidence is legally
insufficient to support the verdict. We affirm.
04-10-00719-CR
DISCUSSION
Appellant advances three arguments for why the evidence is legally insufficient: (1) the
complainant (“MD”) did not tell a psychiatrist she saw during the time period in which the abuse
occurred about the abuse, (2) MD’s “stories” about the abuse to her friends were “so
preposterous and exaggerated as to call her entire testimony into question,” and (3) all the abuse
occurred in a single room that MD “could easily have avoided, in a mid-sized house where
others were present and no one noticed.” Appellant’s arguments ask this court to re-evaluate the
weight and credibility of the evidence; something we cannot do. See Williams v. State, 235
S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“Under a legal sufficiency review, ‘our role is not to
become a thirteenth juror. This Court may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the record
evidence and thereby substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.’”). Instead, we ask
whether, considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury was
rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893,
899, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
“Viewing the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict’ under a legal-sufficiency
standard means that the reviewing court is required to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight
determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to
be given their testimony.” Id. at 899.
Here, MD was twelve years old at the time of trial, but she testified about events that
occurred several years earlier. MD testified the abuse occurred frequently, starting when she was
six years old and ending when she was ten years old. She described how appellant, her father’s
uncle, touched her and inserted his finger inside her. Appellant, who testified on his own behalf,
denied all allegations against him. Although this case involved MD’s word against that of
-2-
04-10-00719-CR
appellant, it was the jury’s prerogative to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and to
judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. See Ruiz v.
State, 891 S.W.2d 302, 304 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, pet. ref’d) (“The testimony of a
victim standing alone, even when the victim is a child, is sufficient to support a conviction for
sexual assault.”).
CONCLUSION
After considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we overrule
appellant’s issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Do not publish
-3-