Taylor, Samuel Willard v. State

AFFIRM Opinion Filed December 5, 2012.
In The
Qtiurt nf T).1rzt1!
fiftIi Htrirt JEf rxa tt Ji11w
No. 05-11-01282-CR
SAMUEL WILLARD TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Criminal District Court
I)allas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. Fl 0-72404-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Moseley
A jury convicted Samuel Willard Taylor of aggravated sexual assault of a child under six
years of age. He asserts two issues in this appeal: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove
the element of penetration, and (2) the trial court erred by including a definition of reasonable doubt
in the july charge. The background and facts of the case are well-known to the parties thus, we do
not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum
opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I avlors first issue challenges the evidence sho\inu he penetrated the victim’s sexual organ.
The child victim testified that laylor penetrated her vagina with his linger. The State could meet
its burden throui,h the testimony of the child victim alone See Tux. COOL, CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art.
38.07() (West Supp. 2011 ); Lee i’. State. 186 S.W.3d 649.655 (l cx. App. ——Dallas 2006. pet. reid).
We overrule Taylor’s first issue.
taylor’s second issue challenges the jury charge. which included the fbllowing instruction:
“It is not required that the I3rosecution proves guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the
prosecution’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt’ concerning the defendant’s guilt.” This Court
previously considered this instruction and concluded it (loes not define “reasonable doubt.” 0 ‘(‘anus
i’. State. 140 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2003, pet. reid): accord Bates v. State, 164
S.W.3d 928. 93 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). We overrule Taylor’s second issue.
Having resolved Taylor’s two issues. we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
JIM MOSELEY
JusTicE
Do Not Publish
Tix. R. Ai’p. P. 47
11 1282F.U05
At trial, the child victim used the tenns “tinkle” and “booty” to describe her genitals. She testified:
(3. And when he touched your tinkle with his fingers. did it go inside our tinkle or outside your tinkle?
A. Inside.
Q. Inside. And how did that make your tinkle feel?
A. Bad.
A child victim “may testit using language appropriate for her age to describe the sexual assault.”
Karnes v. State. 873 S.W.2d 92. 96 (Tex.
App —Dallas 1994. no pet.): set’ (11.0) tii/oioii i. State. 791 5W.2d 130. 134 hex. Crirn. App. 1990) (‘[WJe
cannot expect the child victims of
violent crimes to testify with the same clarity and ability as is expected of mature and capable
adults.”t.
(!ntirt iif ;4Tt1rth
Fifth listrirt uf xas at Jat1ai
JUDGMENT
SAMUEL WILLARI) TAYLOR, Appellant Appeal from the 291 st Criminal District
Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-I 1-01282-CR V. Cause No. F 10-72404-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley,
THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Justices Francis and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFF1RN’IEI).
.Iudgment entered December 5. 2012.
f/f
4IMMOELFY
JUSTICE