Question not identified

QUESTION PRESENTED ° FORMAL REQUISITE OF AN INDICTMENT: THE INDICTMENT FAILED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE THE OFFENSE,AS WRITTEN ; IN THE TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. INSUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT: _ WHERE INDICTMENT/JURY CHARGE"DO NOT" FACIALLY ALLEGE THE. OFFENSE, THIS REVIEWING COURT MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION "NOT ONLY THE: INDICTMENT/ JURY CHARGE,BUT ALSO CONTROLLING PENAL PROVISIONS : AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS" SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGES-FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY: THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH FACTS OF !¥CONTINUOUS : SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST.A CHILD YOUNGER THAN 14 YEARS OF AGE" OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF "INDECENCY WITH A CHILD BY CONTACT" THAT IS NOT LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT OF THE COMPLAINT. FAILURE TO TRACK INDICTMENT IN THE JURY CHARGE: “NOT TRACKING THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE MANNER AND MEANS ALLEGED : . IN THE INDICTMENT". . ; AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT: : TRIAL COURT FAILED TO EFFECTIVELY AMEND INDICTMENT OF PEOPLE'S : : COMPLAINT. : : FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD OF REVIEW: THIS COURT IS TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT TO DETERMINE THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ; USED TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE. NO EVIDENCE DOCTRINE: : : \ THUS SECURES AN ACCUSED THE MOST ELEMENT'S OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT'S; ‘Le “FREEDOM FROM WHOLLY ABITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY". PREJUDICE: THIS COURT SHALL HOLD TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE COMPLAINED ABOUT EVIDENCE. HARM ANALYSIS: “ONE DOES NOT LOOK AT THE TAINED EVIDENCE, BUT AT THE UNTAINED EVIDENCE!'AND ASKS WHETHER IT ALONE COMPELS A VERDICT OF GUILT. _ FIELD ASSESSING THE HARMFULNESS OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL : ; ERROR(S). WAS THERE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF GUILT ? THAT WAS NOT TAINED/ . TURNISHED BY ERROR[S). ; . \ EGREGIOUS HARM: REVERSAL IS REQUIRED,SHOULD THE ERROR(S),WERE CALCULATED TO INJURE THE RIGHT'S OF THE ACCUSED. SUBSTANTIAL OF EVIDENCE: ; THIS APPELLATE COURT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WOULD ENABLE A REASONABLE AND FAIR MIND? PERSON TO FIND THE FACTS AT ISSUE,THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION. FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW: APPELLANT CHALLENGES THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN HIS CONVICTION AS BOTH EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ARE FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. VARIANCE, PROOF ELEMENT: THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT, BECAUSE OF THE FATAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE INDICTMENT AND PROOF AT TRIAL. ‘ PRESERVATION FOR REVIEW: IF ERROR(S) ARE SO...EGREGIOUS AND CREATE SUCH HARM THAT IT IS . FAIR TO SAY THE ACCUSED DID NOT,HAVE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. LEGISLATION INTERPRETATION: : IF A STATUTE MAKE'S EACH “VIOLATION",A SEPARATE ELEMENT (STATUTE/ JURY CHARGE)THE GOVERNMENT "DID NOT" PROVE THESE ELEMENTS, THERE FORE THIS REVIEWING COURT SHALL REVERSE AND REMAND FOR FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY AND GRANT A NEW TRIAL. : REVERSIBLE ERROR'S: REVERSIBLE FOR FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY: THERE IS SOME OBJECTIVE BASIS IN THE RECORD THAF SHOWS THE GREAT . WEIGHT AND PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTS THE JURY'S VERDICT, THAT SHOCK'S THE CONSCIENCE,OR CLEARLY DEMONSTRA; TES,BIAS AND PREJUDICE. EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY/ ALLEGED INTERPRETER: A HEARING MUST, TAKE PLACE BEFORE HER TESTIMONY CAN BE ADMITTED. NO HEARING ?. ; NO EDUCATION, STUDY OR TECHNICAL WORK,OR COMBINATION: : BEING BORN HISPANIC,FOR FORENSIC INTERVIEW OF VICTIMIZED CHILDERN : OF SEXUAL ABUSE,DOES NOT MAKE ONE AN EXPERT. RELIABILITY STANDARD: . RULE 702,TEX,R.CIV. EVID.,A RELIABILITY STANDARD NOTING THAT THE GOAL OF ROUTING OUT BOGUS EXPERT'S OPINION'S. \o HEARSAY GROUND: APPELLANT OBJECTED TO HEARSAY,REQUESTED MISTRIAL, DENIAL. _ EXPERT TESTIMONY: APPELLANT COMPLAIN'S ABOUT ALLEGED EXPERT TESTIMONY AND INTRODUCTION OF NON-INTERPRETED FORENSIC VIDEO. APPELLANT ALSO DIS: PUTES THIS INTERPRETER'S RELIABILITY. OUTCRY STATEMENT: ; APPELANT ASSERTS THAT TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING VIDEO AND TESTIMONY OF CLAUDIA ALVARADO(ALLEGED EXPERT TRANSLATER ) REGARDING COMPLAINANT'S OUTCRY STATEMENT. DAUBERT CHALLENGE® NURSE ROSELYN ASSAULT NURSE EXAMINOR) TEST