Alejandro Morales Calles v. State
14-14-00696-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2015Background
- Alejandro Morales Calles (Appellant) was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child based primarily on the testimony of M.G., a child who visited his small Houston home in July 2012 while several other children were present.
- At trial M.G. testified that while sitting on a loveseat she was touched and that the defendant inserted his fingers into her vagina; Morales testified he sat in a recliner with his feet propped and was working on a laptop and that any contact was playful or a push after she misbehaved.
- Discrepancies existed in M.G.’s accounts: initial reports to police described inappropriate touching but the penetration allegation emerged more fully during a later child advocacy center (CAC) interview; she gave varying details about clothing and whether she wore a belt.
- Defense emphasized physical and situational implausibility (room/furniture configuration, other children present, defendant’s posture with laptop) and argued the penetration claim was subsequently elicited by an interviewer; prosecution relied on outcry and interviews by officers and CAC personnel.
- Procedural posture: this is appellant’s brief arguing the evidence was legally insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia; he asks the appellate court to reverse and render an acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State presented legally sufficient evidence to support conviction under Jackson v. Virginia | State: testimony of complainant, outcry to father and police, and CAC interview supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Morales: evidence conclusively raises reasonable doubt due to physical implausibility, inconsistent statements, delayed/elicited details, and other children present | Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient; this brief asks the court to reverse and render an acquittal (decision not provided in brief) |
| Whether inconsistencies in complainant’s statements undermine sufficiency | State: inconsistencies are credibility issues for jury | Morales: inconsistencies (police vs CAC, clothing/belt, timing/location) materially undercut proof of penetration | Appellant contends inconsistencies create conclusive reasonable doubt |
| Whether physical/layout evidence renders the alleged act impossible | State: relies on witness placements and testimony to support occurrence | Morales: room dimensions, furniture placement, defendant’s posture with laptop make penetration physically implausible and unlikely to go unnoticed by other children | Appellant contends physical impossibility establishes reasonable doubt |
| Whether outcry and investigative testimony corroborate penetration claim | State: outcry to father and officer reports corroborate touching and later CAC interview supports penetration allegation | Morales: father’s testimony contradicted complainant at trial; officer characterized initial report as touching (not penetration); CAC interview appears to have elicited new detail | Appellant argues outcry/investigative testimony do not reliably corroborate penetration and thus are insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review — whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (evidence that raises only suspicion is insufficient; appellate courts must ensure evidence supports conviction)
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (applying Jackson standard in Texas sufficiency analysis)
- Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (evidence insufficient where record conclusively establishes reasonable doubt)