Richard Wayne Hammer v. State
11-14-00288-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Richard Wayne Hammer (Appellant) was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 99 years' confinement. Trial court Cause No. CR14201 in Erath County.
- Victim L.C., a young child, was removed from her mother’s home and later disclosed to her father that "Papoo" (Appellant) had been touching her "down there," and that it had happened "since she was like four."
- A sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) recorded that L.C. said Papoo touched her "on the inside" and that it hurt; the SANE noted no visible genital or anal injury but diagnosed sexual abuse.
- DNA testing of vaginal labia swabs detected male DNA, but the sample could not be matched to a specific person.
- Appellant denied sexual touching or penetration, admitted violating a CPS no-contact agreement, and had a prior Arizona conviction for sexual conduct with a minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove aggravated sexual assault (penetration) | State: Victim’s statements to father and SANE that Appellant touched her "inside" and felt pain, child testimony at trial, and male DNA on labial swabs suffice to prove penetration beyond a reasonable doubt | Hammer: Victim did not explicitly say he penetrated her; DNA was not matched to him, so evidence is insufficient | Court: Evidence sufficient; slight penetration is enough, child testimony can alone support conviction, and inferences from statements and male DNA support verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson standard in Texas)
- Polk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (pet. ref’d) (discussing sufficiency review)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency and application of Jackson standard)
- Brown v. State, 381 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012) (no pet.) (circumstances where evidence is insufficient)
- Sherbert v. State, 531 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (slight penetration is sufficient)
- Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (same principle on penetration sufficiency)
- Empty v. State, 972 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (pet. ref’d) (child victim’s testimony can alone support conviction)