Alton LaPointe Jr. v. the State of Texas, 09-24-00150-CR

Alton LaPointe Jr. ("Junior") was indicted and tried for indecency with a child by contact, based on alleged conduct involving his five-year-old half-sister, Montana, in the home they frequented with other siblings and mothers present.
Junior, age seventeen at the time, denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty; the jury found him guilty of indecency but not guilty of a separate sexual assault charge relating to the same child.
The State's evidence included testimony from family members, a forensic nurse, police, and a forensic interviewer, with Montana providing inconsistent or contradictory statements about the alleged contact.
Venetta (a caregiver) discovered Montana upstairs with her pants down and Junior present, and quickly confronted Junior, who fled the scene; both mothers and police responded after the event.
Montana’s statements to a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) and her mother were more inculpatory than her in-court testimony, but medical examination found no physical injuries; the jury viewed all testimony and found for the State on indecency.
On appeal, Junior argued insufficiency of the evidence in light of contradictions in Montana’s testimony and alleged lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly emphasizing testimony exonerating him on key facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence - indecency with a child	Junior argued Montana's inconsistent and exculpatory trial testimony negated proof beyond a reasonable doubt; only conjecture or speculation supported the verdict.	The State argued that the jury could weigh the contradictory evidence, consider out-of-court statements as substantive evidence, and rely on corroborating circumstances.	Evidence sufficient; jury entitled to credit out-of-court statements and testimony of adult witnesses; verdict affirmed.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sets standard for sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia; defers to jury's credibility determinations)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal sufficiency is whether any rational juror could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (jury may believe or disbelieve any part of a witness's testimony)
McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (intent can be inferred from circumstances)
Hernandez v. State, 819 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (culpable mental states inferred from context)