Terrance Darrell Williams v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-22-00130-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 25, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Terrance Darrell Williams appealed his conviction for indecent exposure, which resulted in a 90-day confinement sentence. The case arose when M.D., an employee at Econo Lodge, encountered Williams while performing her duties. After initially providing him with toiletries, M.D. saw Williams completely unclothed and masturbating when she returned with a towel. Distressed, she reported the incident to her manager and called the police. Officer Nguyen responded, finding Williams agitated at the time of their interaction. The investigation revealed that the security camera only covered the hallway and did not capture the incident, as no video footage was obtained.

On appeal, Williams contended that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate his intent to arouse himself or others, asserting that M.D.'s testimony was speculative and inconsistent. He argued that her brief observation did not confirm his intent, and he suggested he might have been unaware of his actions during a difficult moment. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Williams is accused of indecent exposure for calling M.D. to him while naked and masturbating in her presence, followed by an apology. The State argues that indecent exposure does not require a public setting and that masturbation is inherently intended to arouse or gratify sexual desires. Under the Due Process Clause, a conviction must be supported by sufficient evidence, evaluated favorably to the verdict. An appellate court defers to the jury's credibility assessments and considers all evidence, whether direct or circumstantial. 

Indecent exposure is defined as exposing genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desires while being reckless about whether others are present who may be offended. Recklessness involves being aware of a substantial risk and consciously disregarding it. The State must prove that the defendant's genitals were exposed, not that the victim saw them; being naked from the waist down suffices. The accused need not intend to achieve sexual gratification from the exposure, only that the act is intended to arouse or gratify. The mens rea for indecent exposure does not differ between public and private settings, and a defendant's mental state must be inferred from their actions. 

On appeal, the sole issue is whether Williams exposed any part of his genitals with the intent to arouse or gratify. M.D. testified that Williams called out to her while she was in the hallway and requested a towel.

Williams was found to have engaged in indecent exposure when M.D. entered his room and discovered him unclothed and masturbating. Afterward, Williams, now dressed, followed M.D. downstairs and apologized. Poonawalla testified that M.D. appeared distraught and advised her to contact the police. The evidence suggested that a rational jury could conclude Williams intentionally exposed his genitals to arouse or gratify sexual desire, regardless of whether M.D. could confirm his erection. The law only requires proof of exposure with intent, not for the victim to have seen the genitals. Williams argued his actions were private since they occurred in his hotel room, but the indecent exposure statute does not differentiate between public and private settings. Challenges to the evidence's sufficiency were deemed as attacks on the jury's credibility assessments, which the court must defer to. Ultimately, the court determined that the evidence was adequate to support Williams’s conviction, affirming the trial court's judgment.