Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Submitted Date: June 14, 2018
Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 46, 602-A
Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
C. Moseley Justice
a jury trial, Randal Chaise Harty was convicted of indecency
with a child by exposure and was sentenced to twenty years'
incarceration. On appeal, Harty claims that the evidence
was insufficient to support the verdict and that the
admission of two prior convictions pursuant to Article 38.37
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure violated Harty's
due process rights as well as Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of
Evidence. Because we find that (1) the evidence was
sufficient to support the verdict and (2) the
extraneous-offense evidence was properly admitted, we affirm
the trial court's judgment.
Sufficient Evidence Supports Harty's
appeal, Harty complains of the legal sufficiency of the
evidence on two bases. First, he complains that the evidence
is insufficient to prove exposure. Second, he complains that
the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knew that a
child was present.
evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in
the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to
determine whether any rational jury could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010) (plurality op.) (citing Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Hartsfield v.
State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2010,
pet. ref'd). Our rigorous legal sufficiency review
focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.
Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917-18 (Cochran, J.,
concurring). We examine legal sufficiency under the direction
of Brooks, while giving deference to the
responsibility of the jury "to fairly resolve conflicts
in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts."
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19);
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim.
measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the
challenged elements of the offense using a hypothetically
correct jury charge applicable to the case. See Malik v.
State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). That
hypothetically correct jury charge "accurately sets out
the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not
unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or
unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability,
and adequately describes the particular offense for which the
defendant was tried." Id.
indictment alleged that Harty, with the intent to arouse or
gratify his sexual desire, exposed his genitals,
"knowing that Jane Doe, a child younger than 17
years-of-age, was present." Harty committed the offense
of indecency with a child by exposure "if, with a child
younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the
same or opposite sex, " he (1) exposed any part of his
genitals, (2) knowing the child was present, (3) with the
intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(2)(A). We review the evidence in
light of Harty's complaints.
Rivera was shopping with her two young daughters on November
18, 2016, at the Supermarket Monterrey in Longview. As she
and her young daughters exited the market, Rivera saw Harty
in a gray, four-door truck with temporary tags. The truck was
parked in the supermarket's parking lot, and the
driver's side door was open. Rivera could see that Harty
was bare from his waist to his legs and that he was massaging
his penis with his genitals exposed. Rivera was able to see
the full length of Harty's legs and was able to see that
his truck seat was leaned slightly back. Rivera testified
that she saw Harty's face, body, hand, and legs,
including his calves. She could see that Harty's penis
was in his hand and that he was masturbating. Harty was
looking out of the truck window as these events occurred.
Rivera testified that Harty was "looking to someone on
the outside because he could have seen [her]."
a grandmother and her two-year-old granddaughter were waiting
in the parking lot for the child's mother to finish
shopping in the supermarket. They were in a red
sports-utility vehicle (SUV) parked one space over from
Harty's truck. When Rivera saw the child in the SUV, she
was in the middle seat of the vehicle looking out of the
passenger side window, facing Harty's truck. The red SUV
was in Harty's line of sight when he was exposing himself
and masturbating. Rivera did not know the child's
position inside the vehicle at the time she initially saw
attempted to record Harty on her cell phone to prove that he
"was doing those things." At that moment, however,
Harty saw Rivera. He closed the truck door and left the
parking lot. Rivera was, however, able to record Harty
driving his truck out of the parking lot. Rivera's video
recording was played for the jury and revealed that this
course of events happened during daylight hours.
this incident, Rivera spotted Harty's truck again. This
time, the truck was parked beside the McDonald's
playground located across from the grocery store. Rivera