Thomas Raymond Sennett v. State, 406 S.W.3d 661

Thomas Sennett was convicted of sexual assault of a child against his fifteen-year-old deaf niece, K.C., in Midland County, Texas.
The offense occurred around October 2009; Sennett initially faced a mistrial, then was retried and found guilty.
The jury assessed a seven-year term of confinement; no fine was imposed.
Evidence at trial included K.C.’s testimony, related emails between K.C. and Sennett, and a nursing-exam report noting no hymenal trauma.
Sennett challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including sufficiency of the evidence, expert-witness issues, and authentication of emails.
The court of appeals affirmed, addressing each issue and upholding admission of emails and the prosecution’s arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Sennett contends evidence is legally insufficient.	State argues victim testimony and emails prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient; no denial of due process.
Due process based on sufficiency	Sennett asserts lack of sufficient evidence violates due process.	State maintains standard sufficiency review governs; evidence supports element proof.	No due-process violation; evidence sufficient.
Mental health expert appointment and computer-expert testimony	Sennett seeks appointment of mental-health expert and admission of computer expert testimony.	State argues no abuse of discretion; defense did not present adequate threshold showing.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; both requests denied.
Admissibility/authentication of emails	Emails between Sennett and K.C. were unauthenticated.	Emails properly authenticated by appearance, contents, and surrounding circumstances.	Emails properly authenticated and admissible.
Improper jury/punishment-phase arguments	Prosecutor made improper remarks about elements and defendant’s responsibility at punishment.	Arguments were improper but not reversible; objections sustained where raised.	Closing and punishment-phase remarks did not warrant reversal.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1989) (sufficiency review requires rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (weight/credibility within jury's sole province)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Jackson-based sufficiency standards applied)
Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (threshold showing required to trigger expert appointment)
Mason v. State, 341 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defendant must provide affidavits/evidence for expert need)
Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (three-step inquiry for admissibility of expert testimony)
Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rodgers framework for expert admissibility)
Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (reliability/relevance standard for expert testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard for admissibility of scientific testimony)
Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (email authentication considerations under 901)
Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (gatekeeping/authenticity of information in evidence)
Castillo v. State, 939 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 1997) (comprehensive review of closing arguments)