Provost, Jacob
PD-1208-15
| Tex. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Jacob Provost was convicted in the 163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas, of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (alleged incidents Aug. 28, 2010 and Sept. 11, 2010) and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
- Victim A.B., Provost's daughter, testified at trial describing three incidents in 2010 in which Provost forcibly penetrated her; she also testified Provost warned her not to tell.
- Corroborating family testimony described A.B.’s behavioral changes and an outcry made to her stepfather in 2013; Provost denied the allegations and elected not to subpoena a former girlfriend to testify.
- Provost appealed to the Ninth Court of Appeals arguing legal insufficiency of the evidence; that court affirmed the convictions.
- Provost petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, claiming the appellate court misapplied the legal-sufficiency standard and that the evidence (including an alleged inadequate outcry summary) was insufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Provost) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated sexual-assault convictions | A.B.’s testimony and related evidence were legally and factually insufficient; verdict irrational; outcry/summary defective | The child victim's testimony and corroborating family testimony were sufficient; credibility is for the factfinder | Court of Appeals affirmed: evidence legally sufficient; trial court (as factfinder) could credit A.B.’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Jackson-based sufficiency review; deference to factfinder on credibility)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sufficiency principles)
- Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App.) (child-victim testimony alone can support conviction)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial judge as sole judge of witness credibility)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App.) (if any rational factfinder could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellate court must affirm)