Rigoberto Lopez v. State, 402 S.W.3d 55

In December 2010, Salazar and her family entered a McDonald's with six children and sat near a play area.
Lopez followed the family into the restaurant and sat close to them near the play area.
Salazar witnessed Lopez with his penis exposed and masturbating while the children were at the table nearby.
Deputy Hess located Lopez at a nearby Burger King and observed his exposed genitals; he was then brought back to McDonald’s for identification.
Lopez was indicted for indecency with a child by exposure and sentenced to 35 years after conviction, with enhancements for prior convictions.
Lopez requested a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of indecent exposure; the trial court denied this request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying a lesser-included offense instruction	Lopez argues there was evidence to support indecent exposure only.	State contends the evidence establishes presence and knowledge of children, defeating lesser-offense entitlement.	No error; evidence did not permit acquittal on the greater offense.

Ex parte Amador, 326 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (confirms indecent exposure as a lesser-included offense of indecency with a child by exposure)
Briceno v. State, 580 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (establishes framework for lesser-included offenses)
Sweed v. State, 351 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (two-step test for lesser-included offenses)
Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (low threshold showing of evidence needed for lesser charge)
Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (evidence must directly pertain to lesser offense)
Turner v. State, 600 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (knowledge of presence may be inferred from conduct)
Kenny v. State, 292 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (supports inference of knowledge from surrounding circumstances)