1 Appe llant wa s fifteen yea rs o ld at t he t ime of t he o ffen se ; t he ch ild in volv ed was fi ve y ears old.
2 Appellant’s po int o f err or do es no t spe cify whethe r he is as se r t ing leg al o rfa ct ua l su ffic ien cy; we wi l l cons i der b oth. See In re C.F. , 897 S.W .2d 464 , 472 (Tex. A pp.—El Paso 19 95, n

o wri t). 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00178-CV
In the Matter

of P.M.S.

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 1 OF

CALDWELLCOUNTY NO. 1134-00CC, HO NORABLE EDW ARD L. JARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

Af ter a b en ch t r ial, t he juv en il e court adj udica t ed P .M. S. delinque nt base d o n t he offense of i

ndecen cy with a c h ild and plac ed him on p ro bat ion u nt il age eight een. 1 See Te x. P en. Code Ann. § 21.11 (a)(1) (West Supp. 200 1) . Ap pellant brings t wo po ints o f err or , c hallenging t he trial co ur t ’s de cis io n t o all ow cer t ain witne sses t o t est ify and c hallenging t he su ffi ciency o f the
ev ide nc e t o su pp o r t his a dju dic at io n a s d elinq ue nt . We will a ffir m.

In hi s s ec ond poi nt of er ror, appe ll an

t con ten dsth at th e ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to supp ort his adjud icat ion as delinque nt because the Stat e di d not establish b ey ond a re aso nable do ubt t he el em en t of i nte nt f or th e of f en se of in decency with a chi ld. 2 Ad jud ica t io ns o f de linque nc y in juv en ile cas es a

re b ase d on the cri

m i na l stan dard of proof. SeeTe x. Fam. Co de Ann. § 5 4. 03 (f) (West 1996). Therefore, we review chal le nges to the suff

ic ie ncy of the evi den ce i

n j uven il e cases2

usi ng the standards

appl i ca b l e to cri m i na l cas es. In re J.S. , 35 S.W .3d 287 , 292 (Tex. A pp.—F ort Wor th 2 001 , no pet .) ; In re E .P. , 963 S.W .2d 191 , 193 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 98, n o pet.). To det er mine

t he lega l sufficiency of t he evidenc e, we view t he evide nce in t he light mostf av orabl e to the p ros ecution

and det er mine whet her a r at ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he
essen tial elem en ts of th e of f en se b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Jackson v. Virg inia , 443 U.S. 307, 318- 19 (1979). In a factual

suf fi ci ency review, we begi

n wi th the presum

ption that the evi

dence sup po rt ingthe j udgm

en t is l egal l y suf f i cien t. Clew is v. State , 9 22 S .W. 2d 1 26, 134 (T ex. Crim . App. 1996)
. In revi

ewi ng the f actual suf fi ci ency of the evi dence, we exam

in e all the e vi dence i n a n eutral l i gh t. Id . at 129. E vi

dence is f actuall y i nsuf fi ci ent if it i s so weak as to render the v erdi ct cl earl y wr ong and manifest ly unjust o r t he ver dict is aga inst t he gr eat weight and p re po nder ance of t he evi dence. Johnso n v State , 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (T ex. Cr im . App . 20 00) ; see also Clew is , 922 S.W.2d at 13 1- 32
. T he jury de cid es t he cr ed ibilit y o f t he wit ne ss es an d t he we igh t t o be giv en t he ir t es t imo ny, and i

t resolves or reconcile s co nfli ct s in the t est imony, ac cep t ingor re ject ing suc h po rt ions as i t sees f i t. Banks v. Sta te , 510 S.W.2d592, 595 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 197 4) . A jur y can ac cep t t he Sta te’ s v er si on of th e f acts and rej ect appell

ant’s versi on or rejectan y o f t he wit ne ss es ’ t es t imo ny. Moore v. St

ate , 804 S.W .2d 165 , 166 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [14th Dist.] 1991 , no pet.). The o ffen se o f ind ec en cy w it h a ch ild occurs when a pe

rson engages

in sexual contact wi th a chi l d. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. § 21 .1 1( a) (1 ) ( West Su pp. 200 1) . “S exua l cont act ” means
an y touc hi ng of the anus, breast, o r any part of the genitals of an ot her person with in

tent t o aro use orgr at ify t he sex ual des i re of an y pers on. See id. § 21.01(2) (West 1994). Appel la nt contends that3

the evi dence was

in suf fi ci ent to pr ove that he touchedt he child wit h t he inte nt t o ar o us e o r g ra t ify sexual desi re. The element of

i nte nt m ay be i nf erred f rom the ac tor’ s c ond

uc t, hi s rem

arks, or al l of t he surroun

di ng c i rcum stan ces . McKenz

ie v. State , 61 7 S
. W. 2d 21 1, 21 6 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1981 ); In re C.F. , 897 S.W.2d 464, 472 (Tex . App.—El Paso 19 95, n

o wri t). A verba l expr essio n of int ent is not required, and the c on du ct of th e actor al on e is s uf f i ci en t to al l ow th e i n f eren ce of i n ten t. Sendejo v . State , 26 S.W.3d 676, 678 (T ex. App .—C or pus C hristi 20 00, pet . r ef’d); Couchman v. State , 3 S.W.3d 155, 163-64 (Tex. App.—Fort Wor th 1999, pe t. re f ’d ). Pr oof of a cul pabl e m ental state generall

y rel ie s upo n circu msta nt ial evidence , su ch as t he su sp i ci ouscon duc t or sta tem en ts of the actor, i

nc l udi ng c onsc i ousness

of g uil t evi den ce. Couchman , 3 S.W.3d at 163-64. The off ense occurred

in a laundr y ro om at t he ap ar t ment c omp lex wher e ap pellant and t he ch ild live d. T he ch ild

testifi ed t hat app ellant t ou ched him on his genit als. T he child sa id t hat he had his p an t s d o wn an d a pp ella nt t o uc he d t he “t o p o f his t ee - t ee . ” T he ch ild sa id t ha t ap pe llant t o ld him, “Let’s go to t he dum

pster and do it” and “

Let’s do it som

e other t im

e.” Ap pe llant t o ld t he ch ild
no t t o t ell a nyo ne . T he ch ild s aid t ha t ap pe llant ha d t o uc he d h im o n a pr ev io us o cc as io n a s w ell.

Rebecc a W i l l i am s, th e m othe r of one of the other chi

ldren at the compl ex, sai

d that her son came to t hei

r apart men

t for help becausehe was f righ tened. He told her that appell ant had locked the chi ld i n the l aundry roo m a nd turned off t he l i gh

ts. W i l l i am s w en t to the l au nd ry room wh eret he child o pene d t he do or . S he t ur ned o n t he light s. Whe n she a ske d wha t was go ing o n, appella nt “acted strangel

y,” f ell on a table and repeatedl

y asked what she meant by, “What ’s go ing on.”Wi ll ia m s said she n

ot ic ed the chi

ld’ s zi pper was down and s

he thought he l

ooked scared.3 In

hi s brief, appel

la nt states t hat the evi

dence shows at most a “c uri oustouc hi

ng ” s i tua ti on wi th out cri m i n al i n ten t. 4 Al thoughapp ellant t est ifi

ed t hat he had been in t he la undry roo m wh en the ch il d was presen

t, but had not to uched him, the co mplex manage r sa id t hat app ellant, when first co nfro nt ed, denied being in t he lau nd ry ro o m at all.

Appellant’s argumen

t seems to be that he did no t t o uc h t he ch ild o ft en en o ug h o rin
a man n er adeq ua tel y sh owi n g i n ten t. 3 Howev

er, the off en se re qui

re s only “ any

touch i n g,” n ot a sp ec ific degree of touch

i ng. See Gottlich v. State , 82 2 S .W .2d 73 4, 7 41 (Tex . A

pp .—F ort W

orth 1992, pet. re f’d) (“pl

ayed wi th” genitals) ; Fetter

olf v. State , 7 82 S .W. 2d 9 27, 933 (T ex. A pp. —H ous ton

[1 4t h Dist .] 198 9, pet . r ef’d) (c ircled bre ast wit h hand) . T he to tal ity o f the circumstances, inclu ding ap pe llant ’s t ur ning o ff t h e li gh ts and i nstructi ng th e ch i l d not to tel l

are sufficient t o su pp o rt an infe re nce o f i nte nt on t he pa rt of t he jur y. A ra t ional jur y cou ld have determi ned th at th e S tate prov ed th e e l em en t of i n ten t b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. SeeJackson , 443 U. S. at 318 -1 9. The evi

dence is no t so we ak as t o r en de rt he ve r dic t cle ar ly wr o ng an d ma nife st ly
oraga inst t he gr eat weight and p re po nder ance of t he evi den ce. See Johnson , 23 S.W.3dat 11. We
overru l e app el l an t’s s econ d poi nt of error. In hi s f i rs t poi nt of err or, a ppe l l an t con ten dstha t the tri al cou rt ab us ed i ts d i screti on by al l owi n g th re e u n disc l ose d w i

tn es se s to testi f

y . A pp el l an t con ten dsth at th e S tate f ai l ed to f i l e i ts subp oe na li st with the district cl erk and that the wi tnesses’ testim

ony was harm

ful to appella nt’s case. Al thoughit appears appe l l an t m ay h av e w ai v ed er ror b y f ai l i n g to ob tai n a p re trial ru l i n g on i ts di scovery reque st, see, e.g., Young v . State , 547 S.W .2d 23, 2 7 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1977 ), the Stat e,5

by supplemental clerk’s record, has demons trat ed that the subpoena l

is t at issue wason file wit h t he dis trictclerk. F

urthe r, the re port er ’s reco rd sho ws that when the t rial court over ruled appe ll ant’s obj ec ti on to these wit nesse s, it re ferr ed t o t he su bpo ena list as being pa rt of t he file (as w ell as t he la ck of a ru l i ng on the d i scovery reque st). Ac cordi

ngl y , we overrul

e app el l an t’s f i rst poi nt of error. Having over ruled bot h of appellant’s points of e rror, we af

fi rm the tri al

court ’s order of a djud icat ion and dispo sitio n.

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: October 4, 2001 Do No t Publis

h