Randal Chaise Harty v. State, 552 S.W.3d 928

Randal Chaise Harty was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by exposure and sentenced to 20 years (enhanced by a prior felony).
Incident (Nov. 18, 2016): Karina Rivera saw Harty in his truck in a supermarket parking lot, shirtless from waist to legs, apparently masturbating with his hand on his penis; events occurred in daylight and Rivera recorded Harty driving away.
A two‑year‑old child sat in a red SUV parked one space left of Harty’s truck and was in Harty’s line of sight; Rivera later observed the child looking toward Harty’s truck.
Rivera was the sole eyewitness to the exposure; evidence tying the truck to Harty included license‑plate photos and registration.
At trial, the court admitted two 2004 convictions (possession of child pornography and indecency with a child by exposure) under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — exposure element	Harty: genitals were covered by his hand, so not "exposed" under statute	State: exposure is defendant's act; victim need not perceive genitals	Court: evidence sufficient; exposure need not be seen by complainant; convictions affirmed
Sufficiency — knowledge a child was present	Harty: did not know a child was present	State: knowledge inferred from conduct, proximity, line of sight, and parking configuration	Court: jury could infer Harty knew child was present; evidence sufficient
Admissibility of prior convictions (Article 38.37) — due process	Harty: propensity evidence is fundamentally unfair and violates due process	State: Article 38.37 permits such evidence in child‑sex prosecutions and is constitutional; subject to Rule 403 balancing	Court: statute constitutional and admission did not violate due process
Admissibility of prior convictions — Rule 403	Harty: priors were remote (12 years), inflammatory, and prejudicial; probative value outweighed by prejudice	State: priors highly probative of propensity and view of children; single eyewitness made extraneous evidence important	Court: no abuse of discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for legal‑sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable‑doubt sufficiency standard)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency analysis)
Beasley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995) (case holding no exposure where genitals not seen)
Metts v. State, 22 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (exposure proven even if complainant did not see genitals)
Ex parte Amador, 326 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (exposure defined; victim need not perceive genitals)
Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (exposure in child’s presence does not require child’s awareness)
Belcher v. State, 474 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015) (upholding art. 38.37; comparing it to Fed. R. Evid. 414 and requiring Rule 403 balancing)