Matute, Jose Godinez, PD-1617-14

Appellant Jose Godinez Matute (in his 20s) was convicted by a Travis County jury of aggravated sexual assault of an 11‑year‑old child and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed.
Victim B.A. testified she got into a black car with Matute, that he drove to hotels, and that they had sex outside a parking lot; she identified Matute at trial. A sexual‑assault nurse found recent genital injuries and a hickey.
Physical and forensic evidence included a condom wrapper found at the scene with a right‑thumb latent print later identified as Matute’s, pubic hair and DNA testing consistent with Matute, and phone records linking Matute’s number to calls with the victim’s family.
Matute testified and denied penetration, admitting only kissing; he argued the victim was inconsistent and had prior sexual encounters with others.
On appeal Matute raised multiple claims; the court of appeals addressed two: (1) legal sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) whether the trial court erred by permitting testimony about an interrogation instead of requiring admission of the interrogation video (best‑evidence rule).

Issue	Matute's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of evidence to prove he "intentionally or knowingly" committed aggravated sexual assault of a child	Matute argued the evidence was inconsistent, victim made conflicting statements, and other perpetrators were implicated, so no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	The State argued the victim’s testimony, nurse’s findings, forensic evidence (DNA/hair/fingerprint), phone records, and admissions supported a rational verdict	Affirmed — viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt
Best‑evidence rule: trial court should have required admission of the interrogation video instead of allowing Detective Bonilla to testify about it	Matute argued the video was the best evidence and its admission could have shown repeated denials that would have affected the jury	The State and trial court relied on precedent allowing participants/observers to testify about recorded events; testimony from an officer who participated was sufficient	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; participant testimony could properly describe the interrogation without the recording being admitted

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal‑sufficiency review)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate review must consider combined and cumulative force of all evidence)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to factfinder resolving conflicting inferences)
Burdine v. State, 719 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (participant/observer testimony can satisfy best‑evidence concerns about recordings)
United States v. Fagan, 821 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1987) (best‑evidence rule inapplicable where a participant/testifying witness describes conversation)