Mikel Eugene Hall, Jr. v. State
06-15-00053-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Mikel Eugene Hall, Jr. was convicted by a Cass County jury of sexually assaulting a child (digital penetration) and indecency with a child; only the sexual-assault sufficiency challenge is raised on appeal.
- The complainant, "Olivia," testified she was abused beginning around age seven and that Hall touched her breasts and vaginal area; during questioning she answered that he used his fingers and that she remembered "if he inserted his fingers inside you."
- Hall argued Olivia’s testimony was ambiguous and did not directly establish that he digitally penetrated her vagina; he also pointed to the absence of medical/expert physical-examination evidence.
- The State introduced testimony from forensic interviewer Melissa Davison under Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 38.072 that Olivia told Davison Hall put his fingers inside Olivia’s vagina.
- The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson/Brooks standards and concluded that Davison’s testimony, together with Olivia’s statements, provided legally sufficient evidence of digital penetration.
- The trial court’s judgment was affirmed; the court noted it was the jury’s role to weigh credibility of witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence that Hall digitally penetrated the child | State: Davison’s forensic-interview testimony and Olivia’s statements provided sufficient proof of digital penetration | Hall: Olivia’s testimony was ambiguous and never directly stated penetration; lack of medical testimony undermines sufficiency | Affirmed. Davison’s testimony that Olivia said Hall put his fingers inside her, plus Olivia’s statements, was sufficient; credibility for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (statement of legal-sufficiency review under Jackson)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859 (application of sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (jury’s role in weighing evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (deference to jury factfinding)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (hypothetically correct jury charge standard)