Aaron Bernard Carter v. State, 05-15-01213-CR

Aaron Bernard Carter was convicted by a jury of sexual assault of a child based on testimony that in 2012, when victim T.B. was 14, Carter penetrated her while she slept at his mother’s apartment. Victim testified Carter told her not to tell anyone.
T.B. disclosed the incident after testing positive for chlamydia nearly a year later; medical testimony confirmed she had chlamydia earlier and was cured by the time of examination.
Forensic interviewer and family members described T.B.’s demeanor and delayed outcry; the interviewer found no signs of dishonesty. Defense elicited testimony about T.B.’s special education placement and Carter’s physical/mental limitations and lack of a positive chlamydia test when later tested.
At trial the jury found the enhancement (a 1995 drug conviction) true and assessed punishment at 30 years’ imprisonment.
Carter appealed, arguing (1) legally insufficient evidence to support the conviction and (2) the trial court erred by overruling an objection to allegedly impermissible prosecutorial jury argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carter)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of sexual assault of a child	Victim's testimony alone supports conviction; corroborating medical and forensic interview evidence reinforced credibility	Victim’s delayed report, possible alternative source of STI, lack of positive test for Carter, and Carter’s disabilities make conviction unsupported	Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient under Jackson/Temple standards; jury resolved credibility disputes
Alleged improper jury argument (bolstering/vouching)	Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from the evidence showing victim had no motive to lie; urged jurors to assess demeanor and consistency	Argument improperly vouched for victim and usurped jury’s role; objection overruled at trial	Affirmed — error not preserved for some remarks; for preserved remark court found argument a permissible deduction from the record, not improper vouching

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for reviewing sufficiency and deference to jury on credibility)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (permissible subjects of jury argument)
Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (contextual review of jury argument)
Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review for trial-court rulings on argument)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial-court discretion standard)
Stout v. State, 426 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (distinguishing acceptable argument about motive from improper bolstering)
Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (example of improper prosecutorial vouching)