Jensen v. State
66 S.W.3d 528 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2002
Facts
Appellant Gregory Lee Jensen lived with his girlfriend, Jacque Stoddard, her six-year-old son, three-year-old daughter (K.B.), and their four-month-old baby. One afternoon, Jacque went to work, and appellant took the two older children to the beach. Later that evening, after Jacque returned home, K.B. brought her swimsuit to her mother, which was soiled with blood in the crotch area. K.B. told Jacque that appellant had put his finger 'down there' and it hurt. Jacque confronted appellant, called 911, and appellant fled the scene but was arrested shortly after. An officer testified appellant stated to Jacque, 'All I did was stick my finger in her butt with her bathing suit on.' Medical examinations revealed bruising beneath and on K.B.'s hymen, and redness and irregularity of the anus.
Procedural history
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty years' confinement. Appellant challenged his conviction on grounds of legal insufficiency, ineffectiveness of counsel, and erroneous evidentiary rulings. This court overruled appellant's motion for rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion of October 11, 2001, and issued this opinion in its place.
Issue
Was the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child? Did the trial court err in its evidentiary rulings regarding the admission of videotaped testimony, exclusion of third-party motive evidence, admission of rebuttal testimony, and admission of extraneous acts? Was the appellant denied effective assistance of counsel?
Holding
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or in the performance of appellant's counsel.
Rule
Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Improper admission of evidence is not reversible error if the same facts are proved by other properly admitted evidence and substantial rights are not affected. Evidence of a third party's motive is inadmissible without other evidence incriminating them as the culprit. Rebuttal evidence is admissible if it refutes the defensive theory. Evidence of extraneous acts is admissible to rebut defensive theories or fully explain a matter, provided its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. To prove ineffective assistance, counsel's performance must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there must be a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.