Although appellant suggests that his touching was inadvertent, the evidence is entirely to the contrary. Appellant admitted the touching. His explanation that he was kidding or playing supports an inference that he intended to touch the complainant. To find that appellant's touch was inadvertent, and therefore unintentional, the jury would have had to speculate. Intent, of course, is a subjective state of mind usually established only by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances.
Intent is an inference drawn by the jury from the totality of circumstances.
The defendant's statements as to his intentions are not binding on the jury if defendant's acts demonstrate a contrary intent. The evidence established that prior to the day of the incident appellant had become interested in the complainant and had repeatedly asked her for her telephone number. On the day of the incident, he placed both hands over her breasts. Considering the evidence of appellant's attraction to the complainant and the nature of his touching, the jury reasonably concluded that the contact occurred with appellant's sexual intent. Alternatively, appellant argues that there is evidence consistent with an explanation other than guilt, which is that appellant inadvertently touched victim's breasts as he fastened a badge onto her coat.