OPINION A jury found Appellant Jonathan Green guilty of aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment at 35 years’ confinement. Appellant raises two issues on appeal and asserts (1) the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on spoliation. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND Complainant reported a sexual assault shortly after midnight on December 14, 2017. Appellant was arrested the next day and proceeded to trial in December 2018. The following recitation of facts draws on the testimony and evidence presented at Appellant’s trial. Complainant and her boyfriend (“Boyfriend”) went to the Winter Wonder Lights in La Marque on the evening of December 13, 2017, accompanied by Complainant’s family. Complainant and Boyfriend returned to Boyfriend’s Angleton home around 11:00 p.m.; Complainant left approximately 30-45 minutes later after she and Boyfriend had sex. Complainant was driving to the home of a friend with whom she was staying. On the drive to her friend’s house, Complainant stopped her car at railroad tracks to wait for a train to pass. Complainant snapchatted a picture of the train to Boyfriend.[1] Complainant said that, after she sent the picture, a man opened her car’s driver door and pulled her out of the car by her neck. Complainant recalled that the man was wearing a dark gray or dark blue hooded sweatshirt with pants. According to Complainant, she was on the ground next to her car and the man was “asking for money”; Complainant said the man had a gun in his hands and pointed it at her head. Complainant said she found her wallet and gave the man a “couple of dollars”. The man walked around the car, got in the passenger seat, and told Complainant to “get in and drive”. Complainant said the man instructed her to stop her car a few streets away, close to the Angleton fairgrounds. Complainant testified that the man grabbed her by the neck and “pull[ed] [her] from the driver’s side to the passenger side and out the door, out that door into the grass.” Complainant said she blacked out for around a minute and, when she regained consciousness, she was lying on her back in the grass. Complainant recalled that the man was on his knees between her legs, was tugging at her leggings, and was trying to take them off. Complainant said the man pulled out a condom in a gold wrapper, put the condom on, and “forc[ed] himself inside” her vagina. During the incident, Complainant testified that the man “stopp[ed] for something and he went to the side”. Complainant said she “grabbed whatever was next to” her — Complainant at first thought it was a gun magazine but instead it was a cell phone. Complainant got up, ran to her car, and drove away from the scene. Complainant called her father and told him what happened. Complainant realized when she was on the phone with her father that she had the man’s cell phone. Complainant drove to her parents’ house, which was next door to Boyfriend’s. Boyfriend came outside when Complainant arrived; testifying at Appellant’s trial, Boyfriend recalled that Complainant was crying, her leggings were ripped, and she said she had been raped. Complainant’s father (“Father”) said that, when Complainant arrived at the house after the incident, he and his wife opened her car’s door and Complainant “did not have her clothes on.” Immediately after, Father said he got in his white truck and drove to the railroad tracks to “catch” the person involved in the incident. Father saw someone in a hooded sweatshirt walking near the railroad tracks and stated that he “was really close to running [that person] over.” Father said when the man saw him turn his truck around, the man ran away. Officer Dale Meyer and Detective Brian Hoskins responded after the incident. Officer Meyer testified that Complainant was “very distraught, very shooken [sic] up, shaking, visibly truly upset.” Officer Meyer said the knees on Complainant’s leggings were cut and dirty. Complainant gave Officer Meyer the cell phone she grabbed during the incident. Detective Hoskins collected some of Complainant’s clothing and attempted to collect DNA evidence from Complainant’s car. Detective Hoskins also noticed dead grass in Complainant’s car. Complainant went to the hospital and was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner. The nurse found bruising on the underside of Complainant’s chin, her neck, and the back of her arm, as well as a scratch on her thigh. Photographs admitted into evidence show bruising and scratches on Complainant’s neck. The nurse also noted that Complainant had a vaginal tear. The nurse collected DNA swabs from Complaint’s neck, genitals, and fingernails. The forensic scientist that analyzed this evidence testified as follows with respect to the results of her analysis on Complainant’s left neck swab: The DNA profile is interpreted as a mixture of three individuals with [Complainant] as an assumed contributor. Obtaining this profile is 1.25 octillion times more likely if the DNA came from [Complainant], [Appellant], and one unknown individual than if the DNA came from [Complainant] and two unrelated unknown individuals. Based on the likelihood ratio results, [Appellant] cannot be excluded as a possible contributor to the profile. Later during the investigation, Complainant twice was presented with a photo array that contained Appellant’s photo. Complainant did not identify Appellant as the person involved in the incident. Proceeding with the investigation, Detective Arminda Cantu obtained a search warrant for the cellular phone Complainant found while fleeing to her car. After the warrant was signed, Detective Hoskins looked through the phone’s messages, calls, and social media applications and determined that the phone belonged to Appellant. The phone was delivered to the Pearland Police Department for a forensic data dump. Testifying at Appellant’s trial, the officer who performed the data dump said the phone’s records show the following calls were made or received on December 13, 2017:
