Richard D. Donaldson v. State, 02-15-00206-CR

Appellant Richard D. Donaldson was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Tex. Penal Code § 21.02) based on allegations by his then-nine-year-old stepdaughter Ann of multiple sexual acts in 2011 at three locations (duplex, grandmother’s house in Wichita Falls, and a Carolina Drive residence).
Ann described oral-genital contact, attempted vaginal penetration, and one instance of oral insertion with ejaculation; she first reported the abuse in July 2011. Medical exam was normal; a forensic interview and a nurse’s report corroborated Ann’s outcry and details.
Defense witnesses (Donaldson, his grandmother, and son Armani) disputed timing, presence, and some details; Armani testified he would have been awakened by activity on the bed but did not recall such events.
The jury convicted Donaldson of continuous sexual abuse and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment; Donaldson appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence as to the 30‑day timing element and general inconsistencies, and (2) reversible error in admitting outcry testimony from Mother’s friend Audrey under art. 38.072.
The court reviewed sufficiency under Jackson v. Virginia (light most favorable standard) and treated any erroneous admission of Audrey’s testimony as nonconstitutional error, subject to harm analysis under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Donaldson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for continuous sexual abuse (30+ day period & acts)	Ann’s testimony, forensic interview, and nurse’s report established multiple acts across dates spanning more than 30 days; jury could infer timeline and find elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Timeline and details inconsistent; events could be compressed into <30 days; testimony lacked physical corroboration and was not credible	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find two or more sexual acts over a 30+ day period; testimony alone suffices for penetration allegations
Admission of Audrey’s testimony as outcry witness under art. 38.072	Audrey recounted Ann’s outcry; State treated Audrey as proper outcry witness	Audrey was not the first adult told; Mother — and the State’s notice — indicated Mother was the outcry recipient; Audrey’s admission therefore hearsay not within exception	Assuming error, admission was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) because the same substantive statements were admitted without objection via Ann’s forensic interview and other witnesses; Donaldson’s substantial rights not affected

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review) (establishes the reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard)
Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to factfinder on credibility and inferences)
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limits on appellate reweighing credibility)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless-error standard for substantial-rights analysis)
Ambrose v. State, 487 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App.) (performing harm analysis where error assumed)
Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. Crim. App.) (inadmissible evidence can be harmless where other unobjected evidence proves same fact)