Cody Allan Srader v. State, 05-15-01272-CR

Cody Allan Srader was tried in a bench trial on an indictment charging continuous sexual abuse of a young child, indecency with a child by contact, two counts of sexual performance by a child, and two counts of indecency by exposure; he pleaded not guilty and waived a jury.
Victim S.S., born ~2004, lived with her mother, sister, and appellant; allegations arose from events in summer 2014 and an incident that came to light on September 12, 2014.
S.S. testified appellant repeatedly touched her genitals (including applying aloe vera), made her perform oral sex in the woods, and touched her breasts; she described multiple acts over the summer.
Forensic interviewer Lisa Martinez recorded an initial interview in which S.S. described some, but not all, of the same events; S.S. later spoke with the DA and remembered additional details after seeing pictures and counseling.
At the close of the State’s case, the prosecution abandoned three counts; the trial court convicted appellant of continuous sexual abuse and indecency with a child by contact, and acquitted him on one indecency-by-exposure count.
Sentences: 35 years for continuous sexual abuse; 10 years for indecency with a child by contact. Appellant appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence on both convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Srader)	Held
Sufficiency to support continuous sexual abuse conviction (§21.02)	S.S.’s trial testimony alone proved multiple sexual acts over a period of ≥30 days (a summer incident in June/July, repeated touching, and a later oral-sex incident weeks before school), so elements met.	Evidence insufficient: acts not proven to be two or more over ≥30 days; victim’s inconsistencies and possible coaching undermined reliability.	Conviction affirmed; testimony supported at least two acts over a period of ≥30 days and credibility/resolution of inconsistencies is for the factfinder.
Sufficiency to support indecency with a child by contact (breast touching, §21.11)	S.S. testified appellant lifted her shirt and touched her breast in appellant’s car in summer; that testimony alone establishes the offense.	Evidence insufficient: testimony lacked contextual and sensory detail, amounted to mere accusation.	Conviction affirmed; the child’s testimony, though brief, was sufficient and credibility was for the trial court.

Baez v. State, 486 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016) (explaining continuous-sexual-abuse statute addresses inability of young victims to state exact dates)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder on credibility)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge to measure sufficiency)
Lee v. State, 186 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (child’s testimony alone can support sexual-abuse conviction)
Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining how inconsistent verdicts may arise when overlapping offenses exist)
Jackson v. State, 3 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (discussing inconsistent verdicts and insufficiency review)
U.S. v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (holding inconsistent jury verdicts do not automatically require reversal)