TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-11-00613-CR
John Richard Ahrens, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR2010-300, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted John Richard Ahrens of three counts of indecency with a child by
contact against his step-grandson who was six years old at the time of the abuse. See Tex. Penal
Code § 21.11. After the Appellant pleaded true to five enhancement paragraphs alleging five prior
convictions for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, the trial court assessed punishment
at life imprisonment for each count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. In a sole issue
on appeal, Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The parties
are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and applicable standards of review. Accordingly, we
will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court’s decision and the
basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We will affirm the trial court’s judgment.
A person commits the offense of indecency with a child by contact if he engages in
sexual contact with a child younger than seventeen years old who is not the person’s spouse with
the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11. The
indictment in this case alleged that the Appellant engaged in sexual contact with the complainant by
touching the complainant’s male sex organ with his hands or fingers to arouse or gratify his own
sexual desire. In support of the allegations, the complainant testified at trial that the Appellant would
have him sit on his lap in a rocking chair and then would “would stick his hand inside my pants and
my boxers and move his hand around . . . on my penis.” He further testified that when this occurred
the Appellant “had his arm around me, so every time I tried to get up, he would hold me down.” The
complainant’s mother testified that her son had made an outcry of abuse to her that the Appellant
had touched his genitals.
Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because:
(1) there was no credible evidence he committed the act; (2) there was no evidence he committed
the act with the intent to gratify his sexual desire; and (3) there is no evidence he committed multiple
acts of indecency with a child by contact sufficient to support three convictions. Appellant first
contends in his brief that there is no evidence to support his conviction because neither the mother
or the complainant were credible witnesses. The jury, however, clearly considered these witnesses
credible, and they are the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and can choose to believe all of the
testimony presented. Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.07 (complainant’s testimony alone is sufficient to support conviction
for indecency with a child). With regard to the element of intent, a defendant’s intent to arouse or
gratify may be inferred from the accused’s conduct alone. See Connell v. State, 233 S.W.3d 460,
467 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). Here, the jury heard testimony that the Appellant
2
touched the complainant’s penis while holding the child down. The jury could have inferred from
the complainant’s testimony that the Appellant touched him with the intent to arouse or gratify his
sexual desires. Further, the State introduced extraneous offense evidence establishing that the
Appellant had inappropriately touched the genitals of four other young boys while serving as a
Scoutmaster for a troop of Boy Scouts. See Morgan v. State, 692 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex. Crim. App.
1985) (extraneous acts of misconduct relevant to prove appellant’s specific intent for indecency
with a child by contact).
Finally, the Appellant contends there was not sufficient evidence to support three
convictions because the State failed to prove three separate offenses occurring on the dates alleged
in the indictment. Here, the indictment alleged that the incidents occurred “on or about” three
specific dates occurring prior to the presentment of the indictment. “It is well settled that the ‘on
or about’ language of an indictment allows the State to prove a date other than the one alleged in
the indictment as long as the date is anterior to the presentment of the indictment and within the
statutory limitation period.” Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253, 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In this
case, the witness answered affirmatively that there were at least three different occasions where
the defendant touched his penis, and the abuse occurred when he was around six years old. This
testimony established three separate incidents of abuse occurring anterior to the indictment, and
there is no statute of limitations for the offense of indecency with a child. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
art. 12.01. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude there
was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable
doubt the essential elements to support Appellant’s three convictions for the offense of indecency
3
with a child by contact. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
____________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
Affirmed
Filed: April 15, 2014
Do Not Publish
4