Background
Ricardo Molina, Jr. was indicted in two trial-court causes for indecency with a child by sexual contact. At a consolidated trial, the complainant testified that when she was eleven, Molina instructed her to remove her pants and sit on the edge of a bathtub, inserted his finger into her anus, and told her not to tell anyone. Her sister described seeing Molina take the complainant into the bathroom and said the complainant appeared frightened afterward. The jury also heard evidence of the complainant’s disclosures to an aunt, a forensic interviewer, and a sexual-assault nurse examiner.
Molina denied touching the complainant inappropriately and asserted that the children fabricated the accusations because he had been strict with them. The jury convicted him of both offenses and assessed twenty years’ imprisonment for each. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, Molina challenged only whether the evidence established that he acted with the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the required sexual intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained that indecency with a child does not require proof that a defendant was actually aroused or gratified. Intent may instead be inferred from the defendant’s conduct, remarks, the act itself, and the surrounding circumstances; no express statement of intent or visible evidence of arousal is necessary.
The court concluded that Molina’s alleged conduct—directing an eleven-year-old to remove her clothing, touching her anus and genitals, and instructing her to keep the incident secret—supported an inference that he intended to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Deferring to the jury’s decision to credit the complainant and reject Molina’s denial, the court overruled his sufficiency challenges and affirmed both judgments.
Key Takeaways
- The State need not prove actual sexual arousal or gratification to establish indecency with a child by contact; it must prove the defendant acted with that intent.
- Sexual intent may be inferred from the act, the defendant’s statements and conduct, and the surrounding circumstances.
- An instruction to conceal the contact can show consciousness of wrongdoing and support an inference of sexual intent.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Texas juries may infer the intent element of indecency with a child from circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the touching and efforts to keep it secret. On sufficiency review, appellate courts will view the cumulative evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting testimony and credibility disputes.