Tanavionne Marcell Robertson v. State, 06-16-00093-CR

Tanavionne Robertson was convicted (bench trial) of indecency with a child by exposure for masturbating near an 11‑year‑old (A.B.) on August 18, 2015; court suspended a 5‑year sentence and placed him on community supervision.
At the restaurant, three witnesses (A.B., age 11; Sarah Floyd, 19; Anna Wilson, 17) observed Robertson across the street with his hands moving up and down in his pants; A.B. testified she did not see his genitals but saw his hands over them and that his pants were down/unzipped when he approached.
Officer Chris Widner arrived, observed Robertson masturbating, testified he saw Robertson’s penis and that Robertson admitted he was masturbating; Robertson continued masturbating in the patrol car while looking back toward the girls.
Robertson testified he was homeless, high on methamphetamine, and sought a private place to masturbate; he claimed A.B. was not present when his genitals were exposed and said he only intended to masturbate in view of the adults.
Robertson repeatedly moved for a directed verdict arguing the State failed to prove exposure in A.B.’s presence; the trial court denied the motions and convicted him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Robertson)	Held
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove indecency by exposure (that defendant exposed genitals knowing a child was present with intent to arouse/gratify)	Witnesses placed A.B. within Robertson’s view while he masturbated; officer saw exposed genitals and defendant admitted masturbating and looking at the girls — intent can be inferred from conduct	A.B. did not see his genitals; only the officer actually saw them; thus no exposure "in the presence" of the child and insufficient evidence of required element	Court affirmed: sufficiency satisfied because exposure in child’s presence does not require the child actually see the genitals; fact‑finder could infer intent

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal‑sufficiency review framework)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Ex parte Amador, 326 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holding the child need not actually see the exposed genitals; presence is sufficient)
Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reinforcing Amador: offense concerns exposure in the child’s presence, not the child’s awareness)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to fact‑finder in resolving conflicts and drawing inferences)
Balfour v. State, 993 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (definition and meaning of exposure)