Donald Lewis v. State, 03-15-00306-CR

J.H., a 13-year-old foster resident, ran away and returned July 2, 2013, reporting physical and sexual assault; she identified an apartment that led police to Donald Lewis.
A SANE exam collected vaginal and cervical swabs and two hairs from J.H.’s vaginal canal; spermatozoa were present on cervical and vaginal swabs.
DNA testing showed Lewis could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm on the cervical and vaginal swabs and to the minor component of the hair sample (Y-STR analysis).
Co-defendant Joseph Quander admitted a sexual encounter in Lewis’s bedroom involving Quander, Lewis, and J.H.; Quander said he performed oral sex on J.H. while J.H. performed oral sex on Lewis, and that Lewis did not engage in other sexual activity during that encounter.
Lewis denied sexual contact but admitted J.H. visited his apartment; the jury convicted Lewis of aggravated sexual assault by penile penetration (Count 1) and indecency with a child by causing J.H. to touch his genitals (Count 6); sentences were 40 and 25 years concurrent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of penetration for aggravated sexual assault	State: Circumstantial evidence (sperm in cervix, hairs with Lewis’s male DNA, SANE testimony) permits a reasonable inference of penile penetration.	Lewis: No direct proof of penetration; alternative means (e.g., transfer from sitting in ejaculate) could explain sperm on cervix.	Conviction affirmed: circumstantial evidence and SANE testimony were sufficient; alternative hypotheses need not be disproved.
Double jeopardy / subsumption of indecency conviction	State: Two separate sexual acts were shown (penetration in one encounter; separate contact in another) so multiple convictions are permissible.	Lewis: Indecency conviction was subsumed because offenses were part of a single continuous episode over two days.	Conviction affirmed: record supports distinct acts (Quander’s testimony of separate contact), so convictions do not violate double jeopardy.

Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (jury as sole judge of credibility)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard review)
Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (penetration may be proven circumstantially)
Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (even slight penetration is sufficient)
Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (appellate courts should not adopt speculative alternative hypotheses inconsistent with guilt)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for multiple punishments / same-act analysis)
Maldonado v. State, 461 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (separate acts support separate convictions even if close in time)
Aekins v. State, 447 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (continuous single-act vs. separate-act merger analysis)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury in drawing reasonable inferences)