Edgar Juvention Barrientos v. State, 05-14-00041-CR

Appellant Edgar Barrientos was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault; punishment assessed at 15 years’ imprisonment.
Victim (A.M.G.) testified Barrientos forced entry into her apartment late at night, grabbed her throat, tore off her clothes, hit and threw her, threatened to kill her, digitally and orally penetrated her, and she escaped naked to a neighbor who called 911.
Police examined the victim the night of the assault, took film photographs of her injuries and two of appellant, but the film was not developed for roughly seven years; prosecutors discovered and developed the film on the first days of trial.
Fifteen photographs of the victim and two of appellant (one showing a tattoo and birthmark) were admitted over defense objection that they were not timely produced; appellant did not request a continuance.
Medical examiner documented bruises, scratches, and lacerations consistent with the photographs; no DNA was recovered, which the examiner attributed to lack of penile penetration and the victim’s urination before exam.
On appeal, Barrientos challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) admission of the late-produced photographs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated sexual assault	State: Victim’s testimony alone established nonconsensual digital and oral penetration and threats causing fear of death/serious bodily injury	Barrientos: Inconsistencies in victim’s recollection, lack of DNA, absence of photographic evidence of apartment struggle, and gaps on threats (no proof of Guatemala killings) undermine conviction	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, victim’s testimony and medical corroboration were sufficient; jury could credit fear/threats and penetration despite lack of DNA
Admissibility of late-produced photographs	State: Photographs were referenced in discovery and prosecutor discovered undeveloped film only at trial; no evidence of willful nondisclosure or discovery order violation	Barrientos: Late production amounted to surprise and prejudiced defense; analogous cases exclude willfully withheld evidence	Affirmed: No court-ordered discovery or showing of willful nondisclosure; defendant failed to request continuance so any surprise objection waived; trial court did not abuse discretion

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (deference to factfinder when resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
Francis v. State, 428 S.W.3d 850 (exclusion as sanction requires specific intent to willfully disobey discovery order)
Henricks v. State, 293 S.W.3d 267 (discussing exclusion for willful withholding under discovery)
Oprean v. State, 201 S.W.3d 724 (disclosure and discovery consequences)
Osbourn v. State, 59 S.W.3d 809 (discussing discovery violations and sanctions)
Rivera v. State, 808 S.W.2d 80 (no general duty to disclose inculpatory evidence absent rule or order)
Duff-Smith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26 (proper remedy for surprise discovery is continuance; failure to request waives complaint)