Alton LaPointe Jr. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00150-CR
__________________

ALTON LAPOINTE JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F23-41405
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Alton LaPointe Jr., a/k/a Alton Ray LaPointe,

(“Appellant” or “Junior”) for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11. Appellant pleaded “not

guilty,” but a jury found him guilty. After a hearing on punishment, the jury assessed

1
punishment at three years in prison. 1 In a single issue on appeal, Appellant

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Evidence at Trial

Alton LaPointe Sr. was called “Senior” at trial, and Alton LaPointe Jr. was

called “Junior” at trial. 2 Senior had children with three women: Laura, Amelia, and

Venetta. The Appellant, Junior, is Senior’s son, and Laura is his adoptive mother.

Junior was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged offense. The alleged victim,

Montana, is one of Senior’s children with Amelia, and Amelia has a total of seven

children. Montana was five years old at the time of the alleged offense. Venetta has

four children fathered by Senior.

Venetta’s Testimony

Venetta testified that she lived in one side of a duplex with her four children,

and Amelia lived in the other side of the same duplex with her seven children,

including Montana. Venetta explained that she and Amelia are close friends, and

1
This appeal is from trial cause number 23-41405. At trial, this cause was
consolidated with another cause number, 23-41404, which was a charge for sexual
assault of a minor. The alleged victim in both trial causes was the same child. The
jury found Appellant not guilty of sexual assault of a minor but found him guilty of
indecency with a child. This appeal pertains only to Appellant’s conviction for
indecency with a child.
2
We use pseudonyms to refer to the mothers and children other than
Appellant. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 (granting crime victims “the right to be treated
with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the
criminal justice process”). The only children discussed by name are Junior and
Montana.
2
they help one another with their children. According to Venetta, Senior did not live

in the duplex, but he was a “great support for the kids.”

Venetta testified that Junior is Senior’s older son, she identified Junior as the

defendant, and she recalled that it was “normal[]” for Junior to visit her home or

Amelia’s to visit his half-brothers and -sisters. Venetta further testified that her

children and Amelia’s children regarded Junior as a big brother, and Junior lived

with his adoptive mother, Laura, about three blocks from the duplex. According to

Venetta, her oldest child was eight, and Amelia’s oldest child was about eight.

Venetta recalled that Junior played video games with the younger children and that

Junior was good with the younger children “[f]or the most part,” but there were “little

things” that would bother her, such as his unrestricted use of his phone, which often

showed “pornographic pop-ups.” She also recalled that sometimes she would have

to speak to Junior about where he put his hands when picking up the younger

children, talking to strangers online, and going to bed on time.

Venetta recalled that on January 27, 2023, she was watching her children and

Amelia’s because Amelia had to run to the store at about 7 p.m. She took all of her

children over to Amelia’s side of the duplex, and Junior was at Amelia’s home, too.

The children were in the living room watching a movie, and Venetta recalled that

Amelia told her that Junior wanted to lie on the couch because he had a headache,

which Venetta found “weird.” Venetta testified she was in the kitchen when she

3
heard a noise upstairs. She thought it was Junior going upstairs to the bathroom,

although he usually asked to use the bathroom because he did not live there.

According to Venetta, Junior was about six feet tall and weighed about 300 pounds,

and she knew it was Junior who had gone upstairs “because of the weight.”

After a few minutes, Venetta noticed that Junior and Montana were not in the

living room, and when she asked the other children where Montana was, they pointed

and said, “the stairs.” Venetta testified that she “had a little red flag with them not

being there,” she yelled up the stairs, “Where’s [Montana]?” and Junior replied, “I

don’t know. She’s not up here.” Venetta testified that she went upstairs and

discovered that Junior was “playing like he didn’t know[]” where Montana was and

pretended to help Venetta look for Montana. According to Venetta, when she got

upstairs and went into a bedroom,

[Montana] was sitting up on the bed with her feet on the bed as well, so
her knees were up, and her legs were apart but not spread, just apart.
And she had her top on, and her pants were all the way off, except for
one ankle, just kind of swooped to the side.
...
[She] just remember[ed] how wide [Montana’s] eyes were, like, she
wasn’t crying or she was just silent. Her eyes were so big.

Venetta testified that Montana was five years old at the time, and Venetta thought

she “wanted to kill” Junior. When Venetta turned around, she hit Junior in the chest

and cursed at him, and she grabbed Montana to take her downstairs. Venetta recalled

that she was nervous because of Junior’s size, but she “realized the gravity of the

4
situation.” Venetta testified that when she told Junior to leave, he ran out of the house

without any of his things and was “pleading” with her not to call the police.

Venetta agreed that a surveillance system was installed at the house, and some

of the events were captured on video. Venetta identified State’s Exhibit 8 as a video

from her surveillance camera from January 27, 2022, and the video was admitted

and published to the jury. Venetta testified that the video depicts her opening the

front door and yelling at Junior to get out of the house. Venetta recalled that she

yelled something about calling the police, and Junior left the house.

Venetta testified that after Junior left, she had her phone and called Amelia,

who did not answer, and then she called Senior, who said he was on his way to her

house. According to Venetta, Senior and Laura (Junior’s adoptive mother) showed

up at her house about five or ten minutes later, and Amelia showed up about ten

minutes after Senior. Venetta recalled that Laura seemed “truly concerned” and

asked Montana questions. Venetta testified that Amelia went to Montana, and “she

just kind of observed [Montana] down there, and [Amelia] said that [Montana] did

look red.” Venetta did not call the police at the time, but she testified that she “should

have[]” and Montana was “a little distraught[]” that night. Venetta recalled that the

police came out two days later, and she gave them a statement and told them about

the surveillance video.

5
On cross-examination, Venetta testified that, at the time of the incident,

Montana was five years old. Venetta testified that at some point, Junior had trouble

in school, and he had some disabilities and behavioral problems, including ADHD.

Venetta thought Junior had trouble in school because his mother “kept moving him

around[.]” According to Venetta, in the summer of 2021, Junior stopped visiting as

often, but she did not find it unusual because of the age gap between Junior and the

other children. Venetta testified that she regarded Junior as addicted to video games.

Venetta testified that she thought it was strange that Junior went upstairs the

day of the incident without asking, and that his footsteps “sounded like it was three

hops.” She recalled that it was “a huge red flag” for her when Junior said Montana

was not upstairs because she knew Montana was not downstairs, and she testified

that Junior “pretended to look” for Montana while Venetta came upstairs. When

Venetta got upstairs, she went into Amelia’s room, she saw Montana, she started

screaming, “I’m calling the police[,]” and Junior pleaded with her not to call the

police.

Montana’s Testimony

Montana testified at trial. She stated she was seven years old, and she lives

with her mother, brothers, and father. She testified that she was in court because of

“what happened, what [Junior] did to [her].” Montana did not see her brother Junior

in the courtroom. She testified she recalled Venetta being upstairs and loudly telling

6
Junior to get out. According to Montana, Junior did not take off her clothes. She also

testified that her mother was angry about Junior “coming up there.” Montana further

testified that Junior does not come to her house and also “[h]e staying there all

day[,]” and that Junior did not touch her anywhere. When shown a drawing of a

girl’s body, Montana identified the “private part[]” and the “butt.” The following

exchange occurred:

[Prosecutor]: . . . Now, did [Junior] ever touch you?

[Montana]: I know he touched me.

[Prosecutor]: Where did he touch you?

[Montana]: Right here (indicating).
...
[Prosecutor]: Did he touch you on your leg or on your private parts?

[Montana]: On my leg.

[Prosecutor]: He didn’t touch your private parts?

[Montana]: He don’t. He doesn’t - - he not touch my private part.

Montana also testified that no one touched her or took off her clothes except for her

mother, when she would take a bath. She agreed she told her mother that Junior

touched her:

[Prosecutor]: So did you tell your mommy - - are you saying [Junior]
did touch you or did not touch you?

[Montana]: He did.

7
[Prosecutor]: He did touch you. Okay. Did he touch you with your
clothes on, or did he touch when you were looking like this [], with no
clothes on?

[Montana]: I would have my clothes on.

[Prosecutor]: You had your clothes on?

[Montana]: Yeah, with [Venetta].

[Prosecutor]: All right. And did that hurt you, [Montana]?

[Montana]: No.

[Prosecutor]: He didn’t hurt you?

[Montana]: It did hurt.

[Prosecutor]: It hurt a little bit?

[Montana]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. And did you tell your momma that?

[Montana]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. And did you - - were you scared when that
happened?

[Montana]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: You were?

[Montana]: Yeah.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. Were you scared of [Junior]?

[Montana]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: Okay. Why? Why were you scared of [Junior]?
8
[Montana]: Because he’s a monster because my brother - - mom’s dad
cousin - - my dad told him to get out.

Montana also testified that she was happy when Venetta came to get her out of there

and covered her up, and that Montana “was safe because [Venetta] saved [her] life.”

When the prosecutor asked Montana again whether Junior touched her on the outside

or inside, Montana replied, “[r]ight there” and indicated, and she also stated, “[h]e

not touch nothing because he’s my brother.” Montana recalled going to the hospital

when she was sick and going to the school nurse.

Amelia’s Testimony

Amelia testified that she has seven children, Montana is one of her children,

Montana was five years old in January of 2022, and Senior is Montana’s father.

Amelia explained that she and Venetta live in the same building and they “coparent”

and look after one another’s children. According to Amelia, Junior was “part of the

family[,]” and when he visited her home, he had chores and rules.

Amelia recalled that on January 27, 2022, she went to the grocery store, and

her children were at her home with Venetta. While she was shopping, she got a phone

call from Senior. Amelia testified that she dropped what she was doing and “sped

home.” When she got home, her daughter Montana was in the living room with

Venetta, Senior, and Laura (Junior’s adoptive mother). Amelia thought Montana

looked frightened and scared. According to Amelia, when Montana told her, Amelia

called the police and made a report a few days later. Amelia took Montana upstairs
9
to “check[] her out,” and Laura followed her upstairs. When Amelia recognized what

happened, she was shocked. According to Amelia, Montana was shy and scared to

speak, so she did a “little dance” to show Amelia why she was uncomfortable.

Amelia testified that when the police came to the house, the Officer did not

talk with Montana, and she was instructed to take Montana to the hospital for an

exam. Amelia recalled that Montana was scared, and Montana’s behavior has

changed such that she is “not herself sometimes[]” and “daze[s] off looking into her

little world,” which Montana did not use to do. According to Amelia, Montana has

a speech impediment. Amelia also testified that she took Montana to Garth House

for a forensic interview, and Montana also talked to a CPS caseworker. Amelia

explained that the situation “was mind blowing and not something that [she]

expected at all[,]” and she had not seen Junior since the incident.

On cross-examination, Amelia testified that Junior had problems at school, he

made unwise decisions, he was on medications—including sleeping pills and ADHD

medication—and he went to counseling. Amelia was concerned that Junior played

video games a lot, that his gaming was out of control, and that others were concerned

about this, too. Amelia recalled that she had taken Junior’s phone away from him

multiple times. According to Amelia, on January 27, 2022, Junior’s mother had

grounded him from playing video games, and he was supposed to have been home

doing chores.

10
Testimony of Kaylee Sliger

Kaylee Sliger testified that she is a nurse qualified as a forensic nurse or

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (“SANE,” which also refers to a Sexual Assault

Nurse Exam), and she works in the emergency room at Christus-St. Elizabeth

Hospital. She agreed she performed a SANE on Montana on January 29, 2022, and

she examined Montana from head to toe, including her genital area, but she did not

do a speculum exam on Montana because she was only five years old. Sliger

identified State’s Exhibit 9 as her report, which was admitted into evidence.

Sliger testified that she reported that Montana was “[c]alm, cooperative,

playful, speech was difficult to interpret related to age and lisp. Patient soft-spoken,

whispers often.” Sliger further testified that she reported on what Montana told her:

Patient states Momma got me on the way here. Momma love me.
[Junior], Deedee, brother, he put hand right here -- in parenthesis I said
“points to vagina” because the child gestured to that area.
She said, yeah. In parenthesis I said, “forensic nurse asked if
patient has clothes on.” Yeah. Forensic nurse asked if this has happened
more than one time.
...
He put his hand right here. . . .
...
He put his lips right here, points to vagina. Patient shakes head
yes when asked if it hurt. He put his hand in - - points - - she gestured
to her vagina again. He is dumb. What’s your name. Morning. He
opened the door, got in my house and he said get out. [Venetta] seen
me and she said, Go, [Junior]. After he took off my shirt and pants, I
think he wanted to kill me. He kissed my mouth. His hand - - we also
- - this says, forensic nurse asked if [Junior] made her touch him
anywhere.
...
11
. . . she had said he made her touch his hand.
...
. . . He put his lips right here and gestured to her genitals. . . . He
put his hand right here, and she gestured to her genitals, as well.
...
. . . He put his hand in, and she pointed to her vagina.
...
. . . He kissed my mouth. . . . He put his lips right here, and she
pointed to her vagina. And he put his hand in and pointed to her vagina.

The prosecutor asked Sliger if Montana gave her information that she was touched

or sexually assaulted, and Sliger replied, “Yes.” Sliger further testified that Montana

had some redness in her genital region and some itching, which Sliger regarded as

normal. According to Sliger, it is “very uncommon” to see injury in alleged sexual

assault victims. Sliger wrote in her report that “[p]atient gives history of acute sexual

assault. [] No bodily injury, no anogenital injury, forensic evidence collected.” When

the prosecutor asked Sliger what her impression was from examining Montana,

Sliger replied, “[t]hat she was sexually assaulted.” According to Sliger, when

Montana said “he put his hands in[,]” to Sliger that meant “he caused penetration.”

She also testified that Montana “gave history of penetration[]” and “a history of

sexual assault.”

On cross-examination, Sliger agreed that it sounded like Junior had oral sex

with Montana, and that Montana also reported that Junior had taken off his shirt and

pants. Sliger also agreed that she understood Montana to say that Junior penetrated

her with his hand or finger.

12
Testimony of Officer Willy Melonson

Officer Willy Melonson, with the Beaumont Police Department, testified that

he was on patrol on January 29, 2022, from about 4 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. He recalled

that he was called to a residence where two mothers live next door to one another

and take care of each other’s children, and the report concerned “a teenager [who]

had possibly sexually assaulted a smaller child.” According to Melonson, he spoke

with Venetta and Amelia, and they both gave written statements, and he instructed

Montana’s mother, Amelia, to take her to Christus-St. Elizabeth Hospital for a

SANE exam. Officer Melonson identified State’s Exhibit 10 as a video from his

body camera from that night, and the exhibit was admitted into evidence and

published to the jury. The video depicts Officer Melonson talking with Venetta and

Amelia. Venetta told the Officer that when she went upstairs that night, Montana’s

pants were off, and Montana said “thank you” to Venetta. The video shows Amelia

telling the Officer that, when she checked Montana, “it looked like it’s been pushed

in [and] it wasn’t like it was before.”

Testimony of Magan Bonner

Magan Bonner testified that she is a forensic interviewer at Garth House, and

she conducted a forensic interview with Montana on February 11, 2022. Bonner

recalled that, although she could communicate with Montana, it was hard to

13
understand some things Montana said, and Bonner testified that other five-year-olds

that she had seen had better communication skills.

Testimony of Daniel Norsworthy

Daniel Norsworthy testified that he currently works on patrol, he worked as a

detective for the Beaumont Police Department for over ten years, and he was

assigned to investigations in January of 2022. He recalled that he was assigned to

this case, which he stated involved “an outcry from a young female about a potential

sexual assault.” According to Norsworthy, his investigation led him to identify Alton

LaPointe Jr.—a seventeen-year-old—as the suspect, but he was not able to talk to

him or see him in person. Norsworthy explained that his job includes making sure

that evidence from a SANE gets to the DPS lab, although not all cases produce

biological or DNA evidence.

Testimony of Julie Prudhome

Julie Prudhome testified that she is the clinical director of Garth House, a

licensed professional counselor, and the supervisor for counselors at Garth House,

where she has worked for twenty-six years. Prudhome agreed that she did not treat

nor counsel Montana in this case.

Prudhome testified that younger children may sometimes be confused in

counseling and typically do not provide as many details as older children, who are

more able to give a cohesive story. According to Prudhome, some children have

14
difficulty finding the words to say what happened to them because they do not

understand sexual behavior, and some children may avoid talking due to trauma.

Prudhome testified that “most child abuse victims do know their perpetrator[]” and

the child may be reluctant to talk due to their relationship or a fear of upsetting or

harming the person. Prudhome agreed that sometimes a child might report that

something happened, and then quickly thereafter say it did not happen, and such a

change does not mean the event did not occur. She also testified that sometimes a

child victim may tell a SANE more about what happened than the child has told

others.

Bob’s Testimony

Bob, Junior’s nineteen-year-old cousin who lives in Silsbee, testified for the

defense. According to Bob, he and Junior sometimes connect online while they

played video games on Playstation, for as long as twenty-four or twenty-seven hours

at a time, and Bob agreed that he and Junior were playing video games on January

27, 2022. Bob testified that because Junior used earbuds and a microphone, Bob

could hear Venetta’s voice in the background while they played games that day. Bob

recalled that on that day Junior had to leave the game for a while because he had a

stomachache and went to the bathroom. Bob testified that Junior left his microphone

on, and Bob could hear a “commotion going on[,]” and he heard Venetta tell Junior

to “get out.” Bob contacted his mother, who went to pick up Junior.

15
On cross-examination, Bob testified that he did not recall what video game he

and Junior were playing that night, and he agreed he was not with Junior that night

and only had contact online through a multiplayer game. Bob agreed that he could

hear Venetta and Junior and what they said, even though Junior was using a poor-

quality audio headset. Bob also testified that he does not regard Venetta as

“family[.]” According to Bob, after he heard the scuffle that night, he did not call

the police because he did not know the address.

Laura’s Testimony

Laura testified that she lives not too far from where Amelia and Venetta live

and that she adopted Junior when he was six months old. According to Laura, Junior

had some disabilities when he was growing up, and he was diagnosed with “ADHD

[and] bipolar[,]” for which he took medication. Laura testified that Junior was held

back in school due to his disability. She also testified that Junior plays video games

“all day, day and night[,]” she had to take away the games from him “to do hygiene,

to do chores[,]” and on the day of the incident, she had grounded Junior from using

the video games because he did not do his chores.

Laura recalled getting a phone call from Junior on January 27, 2022, and

Junior told her he was accused of doing something he did not do. Laura testified that

she also received a phone call from Senior, and as a result, she and Senior went to

the duplex where Venetta and the children were, and they had a conversation about

16
possible sexual assault by Junior of one of the children. According to Laura, she saw

Montana that night, and Montana did not seem upset or distraught. Laura recalled

that Senior asked her to “check [Montana] out[,]” and Laura went upstairs, she

looked at Montana’s private parts, and she did not see anything “alarming.” After

talking to Senior, Laura and Amelia took Montana back upstairs and examined

Montana with her mother (Amelia) there. According to Laura, she did not have any

concerns after she checked Montana a second time, and the police were not called.

Laura recalled that Bob’s mother came to pick up Junior that night.

On cross-examination, Laura testified that she went to the duplex that night,

but Junior had already left. Laura testified that she talked to and examined Montana

that night, even though Montana’s mother was not yet at home, because Senior asked

her to. Laura agreed she was not qualified to conduct a sexual assault examination

of a child.

Junior’s Testimony

Junior testified that he was nineteen years old at the time of trial, and that he

had completed the tenth grade. According to Junior, he had problems in school, but

he had never been in trouble. Junior recalled that he used to play video games a lot,

even for twenty-four hours at a time, and when he played, he used a headphone to

communicate with people online. Junior agreed that he used to play games with his

cousin, Bob, he was playing with Bob on the day of the incident, and he had sneaked

17
out to Amelia’s house that day to play because he was grounded from playing video

games at his own home because he did not do his chores.

According to Junior, Amelia “used to be a mother to [him] but not anymore[,]”

and Amelia had children with his father, Senior. Junior testified that Venetta had

children with Senior, and Junior also used to go to her house sometimes. Junior

recalled that, on the day of the incident, there were eight other children at Amelia’s

house, and he was not feeling well that day, so he asked Amelia to get him a soft

drink when she went to the store. According to Junior, at some point, he left the

video game to go to the restroom, but he did not turn the game off. Junior recalled

that, when he left the restroom, he heard Venetta say, “Where is [Montana]?”, but

he did not know where Montana was at that time. Junior testified that Venetta yelled

at him, accused him of something, and asked if he molested or touched Montana.

Junior said he did not, but Venetta started hitting him and told him to leave. Junior

testified that Bob’s mother picked him up and took him to her house. According to

Junior, he did not commit aggravated sexual assault by putting his fingers in

Montana’s private parts, and he did not commit indecency with a child by touching

Montana, and he testified that he did not even see Montana that day, although he

knew she was in the house.

On cross-examination, Junior agreed that he usually asked to go upstairs to

use the restroom at Amelia’s house, but he did not ask on the day of the incident.

18
Junior agreed he told Venetta that he did not know where Montana was. Junior

testified that he left Amelia’s house that night without his shoes because Venetta

was “screaming and yelling[]” at him, and when he got to his house, he waited for

Bob’s mother to pick him up so he could get away from his father, who had “said

some things that made [Junior] not want to be there.” According to Junior, he told

his father many times to take Montana to the emergency room to be checked, but his

father did not do so.

After the close of evidence, the jury found Junior guilty of indecency with a

child as charged in the indictment. After a hearing on punishment, the jury assessed

punishment at three years of imprisonment. Junior timely filed a notice of appeal.

Issue

Appellant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support his

conviction. According to Appellant, the testimony of Montana, the alleged victim

“basically exonerated” him because she testified that Junior did not take off her

clothes and he did not touch her anywhere, even though she also testified that Junior

touched her leg. Appellant also argues that Montana’s answers to questions were

“unrelated and nonsensical[,]” and that she “clearly and repeatedly denied” the facts

alleged in the indictment. Appellant also argues that the SANE’s testimony was

merely “her interpretation of what the child meant,” and the only inculpatory

evidence was based on the investigators’ conjecture, speculation, and unfounded

19
opinions. According to Appellant, Montana gave contradictory testimony, and it is

not reasonable for the jury to believe Montana’s testimony that acquitted him on the

charge of sexual assault but then disbelieve her testimony that would have acquitted

him on the charge of indecency, citing to Martinez v. State, No. 10-04-00072-CR,

2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2849 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 13, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (reversing Martinez’s conviction for indecency

because the only evidence tending to support the verdict was directly contradicted

by the victim herself). Appellant contends that no rational juror could have found

the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Standard of Review

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the

State proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, we apply the

Jackson v. Virginia standard. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 894-95, 912 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Under that

standard, a reviewing court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and determine whether a rational justification exists for the jury’s

finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 902; see also Jackson, 443 U.S. at

319. “A jury may accept one version of the facts and reject another, and it may reject

any part of a witness’s testimony.” Febus v. State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2018). As the trier of fact, the jury is the sole judge of the weight and credibility

20
of the witnesses’ testimony, and on appeal we must give deference to the jury’s

determinations. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899, 905-06. If the record contains

conflicting inferences, we must presume the jury resolved such facts in favor of the

verdict and defer to that resolution. Id. at 899 n.13 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).

On appeal, we serve only to ensure the jury reached a rational verdict, and we may

not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556,

562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In our review, we consider both direct and

circumstantial evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the

evidence. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Hooper

v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

To establish the offense of indecency with a child by contact, the State had to

prove that Appellant engaged in sexual contact with Montana, a child younger than

seventeen years of age. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). Section 21.11’s

definition of “sexual contact” includes the act, if committed with the intent to arouse

or gratify the sexual desire of any person, of “any touching by a person, including

touching through clothing, of . . . any part of the genitals of a child[.]” Id.

§ 21.11(c)(1). The testimony of either a child victim or an outcry witness is sufficient

to support a conviction for indecency. Humphries v. State, No. 09-17-00104-CR,

2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1033, at *23 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 13, 2019, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Jones v. State, 428 S.W.3d 163,

21
169-70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.)); Gonzalez v. State, 522

S.W.3d 48, 57 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (citing Jones, 428

S.W.3d at 169-70); Tear v. State, 74 S.W.3d 555, 560 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet.

ref’d); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.07. The State has no burden to

produce any corroborating or physical evidence. See Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d

232, 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also Lee v. State, 176

S.W.3d 452, 458 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004), aff’d, 206 S.W.3d 620

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (concluding that medical or physical evidence is not

required to corroborate child victim’s testimony). A person’s intent to arouse or

gratify sexual desire can be inferred from the person’s conduct and the surrounding

circumstances. See McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1981); see also Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(explaining that all the evidence—both direct and circumstantial—admitted at trial

to support the conviction should be reviewed equally on appeal).

Courts give wide latitude to testimony provided by child victims of sexual

abuse. See Humphries, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1033, at *23; Jones, 428 S.W.3d at

169; Gonzalez Soto v. State, 267 S.W.3d 327, 332 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-

Edinburg 2008, no pet.). We liberally construe such testimony. See Humphries, 2019

Tex. App. LEXIS 1033, at *23; Lee, 176 S.W.3d at 457; see also Gonzalez Soto, 267

S.W.3d at 332 (“The victim’s description of what happened to her need not be

22
precise, and she is not expected to express herself at the same level of sophistication

as an adult.”). The requisite intent for the offense of indecency with a child can be

inferred from the defendant’s conduct and remarks and all the surrounding

circumstances. See Hernandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991), overruled on other grounds by Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1992) (“[M]ental culpability is of such a nature that it generally must be

inferred from the circumstances under which a prohibited act or omission occurs.”);

Humphries, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1033, at *24; Gonzalez Soto, 267 S.W.3d at 332;

Navarro v. State, 241 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007 pet.

ref’d).

Analysis

The jury heard seven-year-old Montana’s testimony at trial, which we agree

was contradictory. The jury heard Montana testify that Junior touched her, that it

hurt, and that she was scared. The jury also heard Montana testify that Junior touched

her leg and not her private parts, and that she was happy when Venetta got her and

covered her up because Venetta “saved her life.” Venetta testified that Junior usually

asked before using the restroom, but he did not ask on the night of the incident.

Venetta also testified that she found Montana that night sitting on the bed, with her

knees up and her legs apart, and with her pants pulled down. Montana’s mother

Amelia testified that Montana looked scared on the night when the incident occurred.

23
Amelia further testified that Montana’s behavior has changed since the incident and

sometimes Montana is “not herself[.]” Officer Melonson’s body camera video shows

Venetta telling the Officer that, when she checked Montana after the alleged

incident, “it looked like it’s been pushed in [and] it wasn’t like it was before.” The

SANE testified that Montana told her that Junior put his hands on her, and Montana

pointed to her vagina, and Montana also told the SANE that Junior put his lips on

her, and Montana again pointed to her genitals. Junior testified that, after Venetta

told him to leave the house, he asked his cousin’s mother to pick him up to take him

to their home in Silsbee.

As for the inconsistencies between Montana’s testimony and her outcry, we

presume the jury resolved any conflicting evidence or inferences in favor of the

verdict. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). The

jury was the exclusive judge of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the

weight to be given their testimony. The jury was free to disbelieve Appellant’s

testimony. See Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (“The

jury, being the judges of the facts and credibility of the witnesses, could choose to

believe or not believe the witnesses, or any portion of their testimony.”).

On this record, we cannot say that the State failed to present evidence that

Appellant, with the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire, touched a part of

Montana’s genitals. See Humphries, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1033, at **24-25.

24
Venetta’s and Amelia’s testimony was consistent with their reports to the police on

the night of the incident, and their testimony was consistent with the SANE’s

testimony. The jury could have regarded Appellant’s flight from the scene and out

of town as reflecting consciousness of guilt. See Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 884

(Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (explaining that evidence of flight shows a consciousness of

guilt of the crime for which the defendant is on trial), overruled on other grounds by

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).

Appellant argues that his conviction “rests entirely upon inconclusive

evidence, interpretations of what the child may have meant in prior contradictory

statements, and subsequent speculation rather than proof beyond a reasonable

doubt[,]” and cites to Alas v. State, Nos. 02-18-00444-CR & 02-18-00445-CR, 2020

Tex. App. LEXIS 4720, at *7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 25, 2020, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). We find Alas distinguishable on the facts

because in Alas, the alleged victim made no outcry during her forensic interview,

and instead she told the nurse examiner that the defendant did not touch her private

parts, and she did not testify at trial. See id. at *8.

Appellant also argues that Montana gave conflicting statements and

testimony, and that it is not reasonable for the jury to believe Montana and acquit

Appellant of sexual assault but to disbelieve her testimony that would have acquitted

him of the indecency charge, citing to Martinez v. State, No. 10-04-00072-CR, 2005

25
Tex. App. LEXIS 2849, at *7 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 13, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). In Martinez, the alleged victim gave a “vague”

statement to a forensic interviewer about where the defendant had touched her. See

id. at *8. And at trial, the alleged victim testified that the defendant only touched her

breasts and had not touched her genital area. See id. In Martinez, the victim was

fifteen years old at the time of the offense but in this case, Montana was five years

old at the time of the offense and seven years old at the time she testified at trial. In

this case, there was other evidence to support the charge of indecency: testimony by

Venetta that she found Montana upstairs when Appellant was also upstairs, and that

Montana’s pants were pulled down; Amelia’s testimony that she checked Montana’s

private parts, which looked “pushed in”; and Montana’s statements to the SANE that

Appellant touched her together with Montana pointing to her genital area. We reject

Appellant’s argument that no reasonable jury could have disbelieved the charge of

sexual assault but believed the testimony and evidence on the charge of indecency.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and deferring to

the jury’s responsibility to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence and

to resolve conflicts in the evidence, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of

conviction. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 & n.13; Sharp,

707 S.W.2d at 614; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11. We overrule Appellant’s

issue.

26
AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on March 4, 2025
Opinion Delivered March 19, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

27