People v. Hathorn

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence was sufficient to support conviction for indecency by touching breast where complainant said that appellant “rubbed her chest”
• concluding that evidence was sufficient to support “breast” touching when adult victim of child sexual abuse described her “chest” being touched in manner that was “wrong” and in context of other sexual misconduct
• holding that evidence was sufficient to support breast touching when adult witness testified that when she was nine-years-old, defendant moved his hand “down [her] chest,” that she “knew [it] was wrong,” and that abuse progressed to touching her vagina
• concluding that evidence was sufficient “for a rational jury to conclude that [defendant] touched [victim’s] breast on three occasions and that the conduct of touching [her] breast was done with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of a person”
• restricting appellate court’s role to guarding against “rare occurrence” when factfinder fails to act rationally
• “An appellate court cannot act as a thirteenth juror and make its own assessment of the evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).