Scott Henry King v. State, 09-14-00484-CR

Defendant Scott Henry King, married to victim's step-grandmother, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child based on testimony that he digitally penetrated and touched the pubic area of victim E.S., who was under 14.
E.S. testified to two specific incidents: one where King touched her pubic area over/inside underwear and another where he placed a finger inside her vagina and touched her with his penis.
Multiple witnesses (mother, grandmother, a forensic nurse, and a children’s advocate) relayed E.S.’s outcry statements describing the abuse; E.S. also testified at trial.
After the disclosure, King made statements to family/friends suggesting intoxication, uncertainty, or partial admissions (“I don’t know if I did this,” “could have done it,” “twenty percent chance”), and an audio recording captured part of an apology/conversation.
King denied the offenses at trial, offered alibi/consistency evidence from family members, and testified about alcohol-related memory lapses; trial evidence included expert testimony on child disclosure behaviors.
The jury convicted; on appeal King challenged (1) admission of outcry testimony and (2) legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	E.S.’s live testimony and corroborating statements suffice to prove digital penetration beyond a reasonable doubt	E.S.’s testimony was inconsistent, possibly coached, and thus not credible enough to support conviction	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Admission of outcry testimony	Outcry witnesses’ repetition of E.S.’s statements were admissible and cumulative to E.S.’s testimony	Testimony from McConnell, mother, and nurse about E.S.’s outcry was improper and prejudicial	Affirmed — even assuming abuse of discretion, any error was harmless because E.S.’s testimony alone supported conviction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for legal-sufficiency review) (establishes review of whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences in sufficiency review)
Garcia v. State, 563 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (child complainant’s testimony alone can support conviction)
Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate courts should not reweigh credibility in sufficiency review)
Cordero v. State, 444 S.W.3d 812 (Beaumont) (outcry testimony is cumulative of complainant’s testimony)
Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussion of outcry testimony admissibility)
Chapman v. State, 150 S.W.3d 809 (improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if similar evidence admitted elsewhere)
Hiatt v. State, 319 S.W.3d 115 (child witnesses afforded latitude; not held to adult testimonial standards)