Russell Reed Johnson v. State, 419 S.W.3d 665

Complainant (13) went on a multi-day church-family trip with appellant Johnson and his family to Texas City in July 2009; they slept on a living-room mattress where Johnson sometimes lay between the complainant and his step-daughter.
The complainant testified that across three nights Johnson placed his hand inside her shirt, touched her breasts, and on one night penetrated her vagina with his finger.
Several witnesses (hosts, family members, appellant, and step-daughter) agreed Johnson slept on the mattress between the two girls at times; testimony differed on which nights and exact sleeping positions.
The complainant delayed full disclosure for months, first telling her mother partially at the church after the trip, then later youth leaders and friends; mental-health and child-advocacy witnesses explained that delayed and partial disclosures are common.
No physical injury or forensic evidence was found; medical testimony explained that a post-pubertal exam often shows no physical signs of digital penetration.
A jury convicted Johnson of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to seven years; on appeal he argued legal insufficiency due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and no physical evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of evidence to support aggravated sexual assault of a child	State: Complainant's testimony alone (age 13) is sufficient under art. 38.07; jurors may believe her despite inconsistencies	Johnson: Testimony is uncorroborated, inconsistent, and lacks physical evidence — creates reasonable doubt	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, jurors could rationally find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate sufficiency-review framework)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discussion on legal vs. factual-sufficiency standards)
Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (court's choice to stop factual-sufficiency reviews in criminal cases)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (scope of appellate review regarding acquittal versus conviction)
Traylor v. Goulding, 497 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. 1973) (role of appellate courts in reviewing sufficiency and ordering new trials)