ref=d).    
C. Analysis
Appellant does not dispute
that he had a close relationship with D.S., but instead argues that D.S. was
not a credible witness and that the children made up the stories because of a
money dispute between him and Kenneth. 




On December 11, 2004, D.S.
and his younger brother K.S. spent the night at appellant=s home.  The next day, D.S.
called his father and sounded upset. 
When he got home, D.S. told his father that appellant had Agrabbed him in the nutsack@ and made K.S. dance naked on a pool table.  He also told his father that on another
occasion, he had fallen asleep on the couch but woken up in appellant=s bed. 
At trial, D.S. did not
mention that he had ever woken up in appellant=s bed.  D.S. did testify,
however, that he and K.S.weekend as the strip pool incident, appellant touched his leg and
grabbed his Aprivate@ area while he was playing a video game.  D.S. also testified that appellant touched
his penis twice while he and his family lived with appellant.  D.S. claimed the touching happened while he
was alone with appellant at appellant=s home and was trying to pull up a pair of boxer shorts.  Kenneth, however, testified that D.S. was
never alone with appellant at appellant=s home while the family was living there.
Cross-examination revealed
that D.S. originally told personnel within the District Attorney=s Office that appellant had never touched him in a sexual manner.  Appellant argues that D.S.=s testimony is not credible because he changed his story several
times.  Robert Jenkins, appellant=s roommate at the time that D.S. and K.S. visited appellant=s house, testified