Larry Joe McNeal v. State
06-15-00010-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2015Background
- Kelli Unruh was jogging on a public park track in Paris, Texas, in early 2014 when she observed Larry Joe McNeal standing by a white SUV with its door open, facing her.
- From her vantage, Unruh saw McNeal make continuous hand motions for ~2 minutes that led her to conclude he was masturbating, though she did not see his genitals due to the vehicle door’s screening position.
- McNeal was charged and convicted in Lamar County Court of indecent exposure (Tex. Penal Code § 21.08) and sentenced to 120 days in jail.
- On appeal McNeal challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence on two elements: (1) whether he exposed his genitals and (2) whether he was reckless about the presence of someone who would be offended or alarmed.
- The appellate court reviewed sufficiency under the hypothetically correct jury charge standard and considered precedent holding actual sight of genitals by the victim is not always required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McNeal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McNeal exposed his genitals as required by the statute | Unruh’s testimony that McNeal’s continuous masturbatory motions and position made it reasonable to infer his genitals were exposed | No exposure because Unruh never actually saw McNeal’s genitals | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of exposure without direct view of genitals |
| Whether McNeal was reckless about presence of someone who would be offended or alarmed | Public setting and defendant’s visible conduct established awareness of risk another was present and would be offended; actual offense not required | No proof that any alleged offense/alarm resulted from McNeal’s exposure | Affirmed: sufficient evidence McNeal acted recklessly as to presence of someone who would be offended or alarmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard under due process)
- Ex parte Amador, 326 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (exposure to a child need not be perceived by the child)
- Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (clarifying Amador: victim need not be aware of exposure)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
- Metts v. State, 22 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (affirming indecent exposure where victim did not see genitals but observed defendant masturbating)
- Swire v. State, 997 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1999) (video showed exposure even if victim did not know at the time)