Smith, Skie Jordan, PD-0325-15

Smith was convicted by a Marion County jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 40 years; the State's case rested on the child Jane Doe's testimony and associated CAC interviews.
The trial court allowed Jane Doe’s mother to testify as the outcry witness over appellant’s objection; the outcry issue centered on whether the mother was the proper witness.
Two CAC interviews of Jane Doe were admitted at trial; one interview denied the offense, the second supported it.
Appellant preserved issues on the outcry witness and the admissibility of the CAC interview, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; the petition seeks discretionary review to reverse or remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the outcry-witness issue preserved for review?	Smith argues Memaw, not the mother, was proper outcry witness.	Smith failed to preserve the correct-outcry-witness issue at trial; the record shows no objection identifying Memaw.	Issue preserved; trial court erred in admitting mother's outcry testimony.
Was the second CAC interview admissible under Article 38.071?	Second interview improperly admitted as it described the offense while victim was available to testify.	Objection raised that the interview was improper redirect; admissibility argued under Article 38.071.	Admission was error; however, appeal review requires preserved objection; resolved in appellant's favor on preservation.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict (sufficiency of the evidence)?	Jane Doe’s testimony alone suffices to prove guilt.	No proper outcry witness and credibility concerns undermine proof beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (due process standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge standard for sufficiency)
Bays v. State, 396 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits admissibility of videotaped interviews under Article 38.071 when child is available to testify)
Broderick v. State, 35 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (outcry witness is event-specific; multiple witnesses may exist for different events)
Clark v. State, 558 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (testimonial sufficiency given child’s descriptions may be sufficient)
Guia v. State, 723 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (discusses credibility and language used by child witnesses)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (general principles on evaluating witness testimony)