Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Molina, Jr. was indicted in two cases for indecency with a child by sexual contact. The cases were tried together, and a jury convicted him of both second-degree felonies. It assessed a twenty-year prison sentence in each case, and the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
The complainant testified that when she was eleven, Molina instructed her to remove her pants and sit on the end of a bathtub, inserted his finger into her anus, and told her not to tell anyone. Her account was supported by testimony from her younger sister and aunt, a recorded disclosure, a forensic interview, and her statement to a sexual-assault nurse examiner. Molina denied touching her inappropriately and contended that the children fabricated the allegations because he had been strict with them.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Molina acted with the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. That intent, the court explained, may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct, remarks, and surrounding circumstances; the State need not prove actual arousal or gratification.
The jury could infer the required intent from Molina’s alleged acts, including directing the eleven-year-old to remove her clothing, touching her anus and genitals, and instructing her to keep the incident secret. Because credibility determinations belonged to the jury, the appellate court deferred to its decision to credit the complainant’s account and reject Molina’s denial. The court overruled his sole issue in both appeals and affirmed both judgments.
Key Takeaways
- Intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire may be inferred from the alleged act, the defendant’s statements, and the surrounding circumstances.
- The State did not need to present direct evidence that Molina was actually aroused or sexually gratified.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the cumulative evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and defers to the jury’s credibility determinations.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Texas courts evaluate the intent element of indecency with a child when there is no direct evidence of sexual arousal. Conduct that is sexual in nature, combined with an instruction to conceal it, can permit a rational jury to infer the statutorily required intent.
It also underscores the limited role of an appellate court when a sufficiency challenge turns on conflicting testimony: the reviewing court does not reweigh credibility or substitute its judgment for the jury’s.