Taylor, Samuel Willard v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRM Opinion Filed December 5, 2012. In The Qtiurt nf T).1rzt1! fiftIi Htrirt JEf rxa tt Ji11w No. 05-11-01282-CR SAMUEL WILLARD TAYLOR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Criminal District Court I)allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. Fl 0-72404-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Moseley A jury convicted Samuel Willard Taylor of aggravated sexual assault of a child under six years of age. He asserts two issues in this appeal: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the element of penetration, and (2) the trial court erred by including a definition of reasonable doubt in the july charge. The background and facts of the case are well-known to the parties thus, we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court s judgment. I avlors first issue challenges the evidence sho\inu he penetrated the victim s sexual organ. The child victim testified that laylor penetrated her vagina with his linger. The State could meet its burden throui,h the testimony of the child victim alone See Tux. 38.07() (West Supp. 2011 ); Lee i . COOL, CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. State. 186 S.W.3d 649.655 (l cx. App. Dallas 2006. pet. reid). We overrule Taylor s first issue. taylor s second issue challenges the jury charge. which included the fbllowing instruction: It is not required that the I3rosecution proves guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant s guilt. This Court previously considered this instruction and concluded i . it (loes not define reasonable doubt. 0 ( anus State. 140 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003, pet. reid): accord Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928. 93 1 (Tex. App. Dallas 2005, no pet.). We overrule Taylor s second issue. Having resolved Taylor s two issues. we affirm the trial court s judgment. JIM MOSELEY JusTicE Do Not Publish Tix. R. Ai p. P. 47 11 1282F.U05 At trial, the child victim used the tenns tinkle and booty to describe her genitals. She testified: (3. And when he touched your tinkle with his fingers. did it go inside our tinkle or outside your tinkle? A. Inside. Inside. And how did that make your tinkle feel? Q. A. Bad. A child victim may testit using language appropriate for her age to describe the sexual assault. Karnes v. State. 873 S.W.2d 92. 96 (Tex. App Dallas 1994. no pet.): set (11.0) tii/oioii i. State. 791 5W.2d 130. 134 hex. Crirn. App. 1990) ( [WJe cannot expect the child victims of violent crimes to testify with the same clarity and ability as is expected of mature and capable adults. t. (!ntirt iif ;4Tt1rth Fifth listrirt uf xas at Jat1ai JUDGMENT SAMUEL WILLARI) TAYLOR, Appellant No. 05-I 1-01282-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the 291 st Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Cause No. F 10-72404-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Francis and Lang participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFF1RN IEI). .Iudgment entered December 5. 2012. f/f 4IMMOELFY JUSTICE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
