Jonathan Lynn Boughton v. State
05-13-01243-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 1, 2015Background
- Jonathan Lynn Boughton was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment; he appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
- Victim V.M. testified Boughton began abusing her when she was about six while he babysat her, escalating to repeated digital and penile-vaginal penetration over several years; she was 14 at trial.
- V.M. delayed disclosure until about age 11 because of fear, family instability, and concerns about consequences; she ultimately told a peer and then her parents, who reported to police.
- Boughton testified he never touched V.M.’s genitalia and denied playing any “nervousness” game; the jury disbelieved him.
- The indictment alleged penetration of a child under fourteen in violation of Penal Code § 22.021; the State filed a cross-point seeking correction of the judgment’s statutory citation and who assessed punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated sexual assault conviction | State: V.M.’s testimony alone established penetration of a child under 14 | Boughton: Victim’s chaotic background, credibility issues, and defensive evidence render evidence insufficient | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, V.M.’s testimony was sufficient and jury credibility determinations control |
| Correction of clerical errors in the judgment | State: Judgment should reflect conviction under Penal Code §22.021 and punishment assessed by the court | Boughton: (no separate argument recorded) | Sustained: Court reformed judgment to show "22.021 Penal Code" and that punishment was assessed by the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for appellate legal-sufficiency review)
- Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate court must not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for jury)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (jury as sole judge of witness credibility; resolve conflicts in evidence for verdict)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (review considers direct and circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (appellate courts may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (authority supporting appellate correction of trial court judgments)