People v. Soto, 30 Cal. App. 4th 340, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 846 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) upheld the defendant's rape conviction where the identifying evidence came solely from DNA testimony. The victim was unable to identify her assailant because he wore a mask during the attack. A DNA match between a seminal stain on the victim's bedspread and the defendant's blood resulted in the statistical probability of 1 in 189 million that another Hispanic could have provided the sample. The California court determined that "corroboration of identifying evidence was not required for DNA comparison." Soto, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 859. In Welch v. State, 993 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.), the defendant claimed that the DNA evidence failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of sexual assault charged because it was scientifically unreliable and should not have been admitted. See 993 S.W.2d at 694. The Welch court pointed out that regardless of whether the evidence was properly admitted, the court must consider it in determining legal sufficiency. See id.; Nickerson v. State, 810 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Porter v. State, 969 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). The jury's verdict must be evaluated from the jury's perspective. See Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Any inconsistencies in the testimony should be resolved in favor of the jury's verdict. See Cain v. State, 976 S.W.2d 228, 233 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.).