Hartmann v. State, 06-22-00053-CR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtJOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
PartiesJEFFERY LAWRENCE HARTMANN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Docket Number06-22-00053-CR
Decision Date22 November 2022

JEFFERY LAWRENCE HARTMANN, Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 06-22-00053-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

November 22, 2022


Do Not Publish

Date Submitted: November 18, 2022

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F 15297

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

Jeffery Lawrence Hartmann was convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. In his sole point of error on appeal, Hartmann argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. Because we find the evidence sufficient, we overrule Hartmann's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

"In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine whether any rational [fact-finder] could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Tex. App -Texarkana 2019, pet. ref d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App-Texarkana 2010, pet. ref d)). "We examine legal sufficiency under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the [fact-finder] 'to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.'" Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

"Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge." Id. at 298 (quoting Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). "The 'hypothetically correct' jury charge is 'one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of

2

proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.'" Id. (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240). Here, the State alleged and was required to prove that Hartmann, with intent to gratify his sexual desire, intentionally or knowingly engaged in sexual contact with Jane Doe, a child younger than seventeen, "by touching [her] breast and genitals." See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(1).

Jane,[1] who was fourteen at trial, testified that she had been sexually molested by a man, whom she said was in the courtroom. When asked to identify the perpetrator, Jane pointed to Hartmann in open court. Jane testified that Hartmann married her close relative, lived with them from the time Jane was four years old, and started molesting Jane when she was seven. When asked how many times Hartmann had molested her, Jane said, "More than 30."

According to Jane, Hartmann would touch her with his hands both over and underneath her clothes on her breast, legs, and vagina. Jane clarified that Hartmann would touch her vagina under her panties and would rub it and would also "squeeze[]" her breast. On another occasion, Jane said Hartman "grabbed [her] butt" and squeezed it over her clothing. Jane recalled another instance where Hartmann...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT