AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant who was convicted on two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree, with the victim being under thirteen years of age. The incidents occurred on or about November 16, 2012, and January 29, 2013. The victim, an eleven-year-old, testified that the Defendant touched her breasts and vagina underneath her clothing while she was playing a video game on January 29, 2013, and reported a similar incident in November 2012 (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Hidalgo County, J.C. Robinson, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, specifically challenging the lack of specificity regarding the date of the November incident and denying that any abuse took place (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions on two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (Child under thirteen).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant on two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (Child under thirteen) (para 4).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with James J. Wechsler and Michael D. Bustamante, JJ., concurring: The Court conducted a two-step process to review the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the victim's testimony about the incidents, despite the lack of a specific date for the November incident and the Defendant's denial of any abuse, was sufficient for a jury to convict. The Court emphasized that the jury was free to reject the Defendant's testimony and that corroborating evidence was not necessary to support a sex crime victim's testimony as long as it was not incredible (paras 2-3).