We must affirm if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, we can determine that the State produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As defendant's main brief emphasizes, the only real dispute was whether defendant had the mental state required for the crime. The evidence does not become inadequate because the State had been willing to reduce the charges as part of a plea bargain which defendant rejected. As part of this argument, defendant challenges the trial judge's decision to allow the prosecution to require that defendant demonstrate to the jury how and where he touched himself. The latter issue is not before us for the simple reason that the prosecutor withdrew her request, and no demonstration occurred.
Any error is harmless.
Second, defendant uses his pro se brief to argue for the first time that 2601 is too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Much of defendant's argument is based on his assertion that his conduct was neither intentional nor open, points on which the jury found against him. Next defendant interposes a series of objections to the abortive effort to sentence him under the plea agreement that was ultimately rescinded on September 29, 1997. Upon its rescission, and absent circumstances that are not present here, the plea agreement became a nullity, and the State was free to prosecute defendant as originally charged. See United States ex.