Hines v. State, 551 S.W.3d 771

Victim (pseudonym Dorothy) met Joshua Hines in June 2014 at age 12; Hines lived with victim's father and gave gifts and communicated frequently via texts and social apps.
In mid‑August 2014 a hotel incident occurred in south Texas during which Hines allegedly touched the victim's breast; later at Father's apartment Hines allegedly kissed and touched the victim’s breasts and genitals (under and over clothing).
On September 23, 2014 Hines allegedly performed oral sex on and vaginally penetrated the victim in a car; the victim later disclosed sexual activity and sought medical/forensic interviews in early October 2014.
A jury convicted Hines of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Count One) and indecency with a child by contact concerning the victim’s breast (Count Five); sentences were 45 years (Count One) and 20 years (Count Five).
On appeal Hines challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to sustain continuous‑abuse (because the statute requires two or more acts over a 30+ day period) and (2) the admission of a forensic interviewer (Charity Henry) as an outcry witness; the court affirmed Count Five but reversed Count One.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hines)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for continuous sexual abuse (30+ day period)	Evidence showed multiple sexual acts (touching, oral sex, intercourse) and facts supporting a 30+ day period between acts	Victim’s timeline was vague; no affirmative evidence showing two or more predicate acts separated by at least 30 days	Reversed as to continuous‑abuse: evidence insufficient to prove the required 30+ day duration; remanded for retrial on multiple lesser‑included offenses
Admissibility of forensic interviewer as outcry witness (Art. 38.072)	Forensic interviewer’s testimony was a proper outcry about the offense	Hines argued the SANE saw the victim first and therefore Henry was not the first qualified outcry witness for the relevant event	Overruled: trial court did not abuse discretion; Henry’s testimony qualified as an outcry (statute/event‑specific analysis)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (due‑process sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Price v. State, 434 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App.) (continuous sexual abuse jury unanimity principles)
Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App.) (comparing sufficiency to hypothetically correct jury charge)
Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App.) (outcry requirement: must describe offense in discernible manner)
Rodriguez v. State, 454 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when multiple lesser‑included offenses qualify reformation is inappropriate; remand for retrial)
Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App.) (separate offenses supported by repeated indecency on different dates)
Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when distinct statutory conduct constitutes separate offenses)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence treated equally in sufficiency review)