together in the same household, purportedly as husband and wife. On August 15, 2005, when shewas 16 years old, J. Jessop gave birth on the ranch to a daughter. DNA testing confirmed thatappellant was the biological father of the child.
Due process requires that the State prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every elementof the crime charged.
Jackson v. Virginia
, 443 U.S. 307, 313 (1979);
Byrd v. State
, 336 S.W.3d 242,246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support aconviction, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determinewhether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond areasonable doubt.
, 443 U.S. at 319;
Brooks v. State
, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.2010). The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by reference to the elements of the offense asdefined by a hypothetically correct jury charge for the case.
Villarreal v. State
, 286 S.W.3d 321, 327(Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
Malik v. State
, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider all the evidencein the record, whether direct or circumstantial, properly or improperly admitted, or submitted by the prosecution or the defense.
See Clayton v. State
, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007);
Moff v. State
, 131 S.W.3d 485, 489-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004);
Allen v. State
, 249 S.W.3d 680, 688-89While the DNA evidence is discussed in detail in subsequent points of error, we note here
that DNA testing reflected that appellant’s DNA profile matched the child’s DNA profile at all15 genetic markers analyzed. Statistical analysis of the DNA test results indicated that appellantcould not be excluded as the biological father of the child, while 99.99997% of the male populationwas excluded as the child’s father. In addition, the genetic results are 57,040,000 times more likelyif appellant is the child’s biological father than if a randomly selected unrelated male of his race isthe father. Further, the likelihood appellant is the child’s biological father is 99.999998% ascompared to an untested randomly chosen male of his race.3