Leonard Charles Hicks v. State, 14-14-00263-CR

Leonard Charles Hicks was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child (enhanced by two prior felonies); a jury convicted him and assessed 65 years’ imprisonment.\
The complainant (then 5) lived with caretakers Janet Green and Pamela Richardson, who observed sexualized behavior and received outcry statements attributing misconduct to her father.\
The complainant testified at trial that Hicks penetrated her vagina with his finger; her brother also testified he saw Hicks touch her “tu‑tu.”\
No physical or forensic evidence was introduced; the State relied principally on the complainant’s testimony and outcry statements.\
During trial, a therapist briefly (unsolicited) referenced sexualized conduct between the complainant and a sibling; the court sustained an objection and instructed the jury to disregard.\
A lay witness (Janet) testified she did not think anything was inherently wrong with the child; defense objected to that opinion as improper expert testimony.

Issue	State's Argument	Hicks's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated sexual assault conviction	Complainant’s in‑court identification that Hicks penetrated her and her outcry are legally sufficient; physical corroboration not required under art. 38.07	Evidence was inconsistent and lacked physical/forensic proof, so conviction is unsupported	Evidence sufficient; conviction sustained (jury credibility controls)
Motion for mistrial after therapist’s unsolicited remark suggesting sexualized conduct with sibling	Comment was unsolicited hearsay; trial court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard; comparable evidence was otherwise admitted, so no incurable prejudice	Remark invited harmful inference tying other sexual conduct to the defendant and was highly prejudicial, warranting mistrial	No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; instruction cured error given other similar testimony
Admission of Janet’s opinion that nothing was inherently wrong with the child	Janet was a lay witness with personal experience; her opinion was a permissible lay inference under Rule 701 principles	Opinion improperly amounted to expert testimony and should have been excluded	No reversible error: opinion was a lay observation based on personal knowledge and was admissible

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review) (jury verdict must be upheld if any rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)\
Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Jackson is controlling sufficiency standard)\
Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury credibility determinations)\
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App.) (court may not substitute its judgment for jury on credibility)\
Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. Crim. App.) (art. 38.07 permits convictions on uncorroborated victim testimony)\
Jones v. State, 428 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App.) (outcry and victim testimony can alone support conviction)\
Tear v. State, 74 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. App.) (discusses sufficiency of outcry statements)\
Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App.) (lay‑opinion limits and when expert testimony is required)