OPINION
This is аn appeal from a conviction for indecency with a child. The jury assessed the punishment, enhanced by one prior conviction, at fifteen years in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In his first ground of error, appellant contends that his indictment is fundamentally defective in that it fails to allege all оf the elements of the offense. Specifically, he contends that the indiсtment fails to allege that he committed the act with knowledge that the child wаs present.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 21.11 provides that,
“(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years аnd not his spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, he:
******
(2) exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
The indictment under which apрellant was prosecuted alleged in part that appellant,
“did unlawfully, then and there knowingly and intentionally expose his genitals to Sheri Lynn Cagle, a child younger than 17 years and not then and there the spouse of the Defendant, with the intent to arouse and gratify the sexual desire of the Defendant . . . ”
Since no motion to quash the indictment was filed in the trial court and, therefore, the sufficiency of the indictment is questioned for the first time on appeal, only jurisdictional defеcts will be considered.
Seaton v. State,
Therefore, this Court must asсertain whether this indictment, when read as a whole, sufficiently charges the offense of indecency with a child.
Seaton
v.
State,
supra;
Childs v. State,
When read as a whole, the indictment alleges that appellant knowingly exposed his genitals to a child younger than 17 with the requisite intent. The allegation that he knowingly exposed his genitals to the complaining witness is sufficient to allege that he did so knowing that she was present. That he committed the act to her is sufficient to allege that he cоmmitted the act with knowledge of her presence.
Thus, the allegations in the indictment do sufficiently state that appellant knew that the complaining witness wаs present when he exposed his genitals. Therefore, the indictment, when read as a whole, sufficiently sets out this element of the offense. See
Seaton v. State,
supra;
Clark v. State,
In his second ground of error, appellant complains of the following jury argument by the prosecutor at the punishment phase of the trial:
“Also, [appellant] shows no remorse whatsoеver. He’s also the kind of man that would lie. He gets up there and he says ‘If I needеd an alibi, I’d get it. I’ll fight the system. I’m not going to rehabilitate myself; I’ll just fight it.’ That’s exactly what kind of man yоu’re dealing with. He is a remorseless habitual criminal and he’s not going to changе. He is a man without feelings for little children. He is without feelings for the little girls and their parents and he’s without feelings for his wife, when he’d go out there and do this sort of thing when he’s married to a woman. He’s a man who under the evidence shows no signs of consсience and in every sense of the word he’s a man of evil intent. He’s just plain bad and that’s what the evidence shows him to be
Appellant now contends that this argument was outside the record and highly prejudicial. However, the record rеflects no objection to this argument. No objection having been made, no error is preserved for review.
Wilder v. State,
The judgment is affirmed.