Osborne, Ausbon, PD-0773-15

Ausbon Osborne was convicted by a jury in Tarrant County, Texas, of four offenses: two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of injury to a child, with sentences imposed concurrently.
Complainant was Osborne’s daughter, around 13 years old at trial, with alleged acts occurring in 2009–2010; evidence included her traumatic disclosures to teachers, investigators, and a forensic interviewer, plus statements Osborne allegedly made about “checking” her for sexual activity.
Investigators and a forensic interviewer testified that Osborne admitted to “checking” the complainant and that in some accounts he penetrated her; the State argued these admissions supported the charged offenses.
Osborne argued the evidence was constitutionally insufficient and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, particularly due to counsel’s hearing impairment and failure to introduce certain recordings and witnesses.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District affirmed the convictions; Osborne sought discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, asserting issues of insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The opinion discusses standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence under Jackson v. Virginia and Malik v. State, and applies Strickland v. Washington to evaluate trial counsel’s effectiveness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated sexual assault by digital penetration	Osborne argues the evidence was insufficient to show finger penetration or intent	State contends the complainant’s testimony alone suffices under Malik and that admissions supported penetration	Evidence insufficient to prove digital penetration beyond reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance of counsel at guilt/innocence phase	Trial counsel’s hearing impairment and failure to present key evidence violated Strickland	Counsel’s decisions were strategic and within reasonable professional judgment	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no reversible ineffective-assistance violation shown
Medical defense instruction and parental purpose defense	Defense sought a medical-care instruction to support parental-purposes defense	Medical-care defense not applicable because defendant denied touching; instruction not requested	Medical-care defense not required for sufficiency analysis; no reversal on this basis

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge to evaluate evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (rigorous sufficiency review; deference to jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance claims)