Ovidiu Tunas v. State, 07-15-00262-CR

Appellant Ovidiu Tunas was indicted on multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child for acts alleged to have occurred in May 2005; the jury acquitted on the sexual-assault counts and convicted on two indecency-with-a-child counts (touching complainant's breast and causing complainant to touch his genitals).
Complainant B.B., who was 13 in 2005 and 23 at trial, testified appellant picked her up, forced sexual contact including touching her breast through a sports bra, digitally and with his penis, and later led her to his bedroom, moved her hand to his penis, and performed other sexual acts.
Appellant denied the allegations and presented testimony (including from his daughter Alexandra) suggesting B.B. visited and stayed at defendant's home multiple times after the alleged assaults.
At trial appellant proffered eight dated photographs of B.B. in Alexandra's bedroom in 2006; the court admitted three (showing B.B. in the home) but excluded five others as irrelevant / more prejudicial under Rule 403 because they were more provocative.
The jury assessed 10-year sentences on each count but the court suspended those sentences and placed appellant on community supervision (including 180 days in county jail).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for indecency convictions	B.B.'s testimony did not clearly show appellant touched her breast at the apartment or caused her to touch his genitals	B.B. expressly testified appellant touched her breast and moved her hand to his penis; her testimony alone can support conviction	Affirmed: evidence was sufficient when viewed in favor of the verdict
Exclusion of five dated photographs — due process	Exclusion violated due process by preventing impeachment and presenting tangible evidence contradicting B.B.'s testimony	Appellant failed to preserve a constitutional objection; photos were cumulative and some unduly prejudicial	Affirmed: constitutional argument forfeited; trial court did not abuse discretion under Rule 403
Exclusion of five dated photographs — Confrontation Clause	Exclusion violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses	No Confrontation Clause objection was made at trial; claim is forfeited	Affirmed: complaint forfeited for lack of timely trial objection

Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (role of factfinder in weighing evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (credibility is for the jury)
Ex parte Robbins, 360 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (due process and false testimony)
Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (false impression theory and due process)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)
Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing framework)
Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (preservation of constitutional complaint)
Sorto v. State, 173 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial objections must match appellate complaints)