JONAS SCOTT LITTRELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed December 20, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-01002-CR
............................
JONAS SCOTT LITTRELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 09CL-2189
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Murphy
        A jury convicted Jonas Scott Littrell of indecent exposure, and the trial court assessed punishment at 120 days' confinement in the county jail. In a single point of error, appellant asserts the evidence is insufficient to prove he was reckless. We affirm.
Evidence Presented
 
        On July 20, 2009, Paula Morris drove to a Walmart in Forney to shop. Morris testified she parked her “350 Full Cab Duely,” opened her driver's side door, and stepped onto the running board. Before she climbed down to the ground, she noticed a man driving a gold Ford Taurus slowly down the aisle. She estimated the vehicle was going about seven miles-per-hour or less. When Morris looked down, she could see through the open passenger-side window of the Taurus. Morris saw the man inside the vehicle masturbating as he passed by her. Morris testified she clearly saw the man's left hand on the steering wheel and his right hand on his exposed penis. The man's penis was erect, and it was “pointed up” while he moved his right hand up and down. The man made no attempt to cover himself or roll up the window. Morris stepped down from the running board and walked toward the store, trying to decide whether to call the police. Before reaching the store's entrance, she changed direction and walked back toward her truck, intending to get the Taurus's license plate number and call the police. The Taurus passed Morris a second time while she walked back to her truck, but she did not look inside the vehicle that time. She did get the license plate number. After Morris called the police, she went inside the store and waited. During the fifteen minutes it took an officer to arrive, Morris saw the man continue driving the Taurus through the parking lot. Morris testified the store's parking lot was about 80% full when she arrived that day, and there were people walking around. Morris watched the man for about ten seconds when she first looked into the car and saw him masturbating and did not see him holding or urinating into a bottle.
        Officer Michael Hopkins, a certified peace officer with the Forney Police Department, testified he was dispatched to the Walmart at around 12:30 p.m. regarding an indecent exposure complaint. The dispatcher said a man was driving around the parking lot exposing himself to women, and he gave Hopkins a description of the suspect vehicle and a license plate number. When Hopkins arrived at the store, the parking lot was crowded and there were lots of people walking around outside the store. Morris waved him down and pointed to a gold Taurus as it drove through the parking lot. Hopkins matched the license plate number on the Taurus to the number the dispatcher had given him. Hopkins made a traffic stop, and appellant was in the driver's seat when he approached the vehicle. There was no one else inside the vehicle. Hopkins testified he did not recall whether appellant's pants were open in the front when appellant stepped out of the vehicle.         Christian Littrell, appellant's wife, testified she and appellant had gone to the store together on July 20, 2009. She went inside, intending to stay only ten minutes, and appellant waited outside in the car. At the time she got out of the vehicle, all the windows, which were tinted, were rolled up and the air conditioning was running. Christian testified she actually spent between thirty and forty-five minutes inside the store. When she came outside, appellant was not there, but the car was still in the parking lot. After looking inside the store for appellant, she eventually called her house. When she got back home, she learned appellant had been arrested. Appellant's father went to the jail and got appellant's car keys, and Christian drove the Taurus home from the store. Christian testified that when she first entered the Taurus, she noticed a bottle of urine on the passenger side. She recalled that appellant had been drinking Gatorade when she went inside the store. Christian testified she did not think it was strange to find a bottle of urine inside the car because she knew appellant had urinated into a bottle on previous occasions.
Applicable Law
 
        In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that the Jackson v. Virginia standard is the only standard a reviewing court is to apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense the State is required to prove. We are required to defer to the jury's credibility and weight determinations because the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.
        The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, exposed his genitals, and he was reckless about whether another person was present who would be offended or alarmed by his act. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.08(a) (West 2003). A person is reckless with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct “when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.” Id. § 6.03(c).
Discussion
 
        Appellant asserts the evidence is insufficient to show he was reckless about whether another person was present who would be offended or alarmed by his act, because he was in the privacy of his own vehicle and the vehicle was constantly moving. Appellant argues that in order to be reckless, he would have had to stop the vehicle, get out, and perform his act for all to see. The State responds that the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant was reckless about whether another person was present who would be offended or alarmed.
        The jury heard all of the testimony described. It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and the jury was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by either side. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Viewing the evidence under the proper standard, we conclude a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was reckless when he exposed his genitals in a public place where others could see him. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895. We overrule appellant's point of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARY MURPHY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
101002F.U05