Opinion
09-23-00394-CR
11-06-2024
YAHYA TANDIA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on October 24, 2024
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-379919.
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEANNE JOHNSON Justice
Appellant Yahya Tandia ("Appellant," "Tandia," or "Yahya") was charged by information for the misdemeanor offense of indecent assault, for touching the breast of "Darla" with the intent to arouse or gratify Appellant's sexual desire and without Darla's consent. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.012(a)(1), (b). Appellant pleaded "not guilty," but a jury found him guilty as charged. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed punishment at 100 days in the Montgomery County jail. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
We refer to the complainant by a pseudonym. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting crime victims "the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process[]").
Evidence at Trial
Testimony of Darla
Darla testified that she works as a detention officer at a federal detention processing center where she monitors detainees and accompanies them to appointments. Darla further testified that the detainees are from other countries and cultures and there are both male and female detainees. According to Darla, medical appointments at the center are scheduled regularly, so the detainees know when they will get their medications.
Darla recalled that she was working overtime on October 29, 2023, and she received a list of detainees from one hall that had medical appointments. She was the only officer on that hall that day, and the hall is a "36-man dorm." Darla identified the defendant, Yahya Tandia, as one of the men in the hall where she worked on October 29, 2023. According to Darla, men and women are in separate halls, and the hall where Darla worked on the day of the incident included beds, showers, tables, and chairs.
Darla testified that, when she entered the hall that day, she called the names of five men on the "medical list[,]" which included Tandia, and Tandia was in one of the showers. Darla recalled that Tandia did not initially respond, but at some point, he opened the shower curtain and "flashed" her, although the shower curtains are always supposed to be closed. Darla explained that she knew Tandia was naked, she told Tandia to close the curtain, and he did so. Darla testified that she stood just outside the hall with the door open to make sure everyone on her list came out, and the men were supposed to stand against the wall until everyone came out. Darla testified that at some point, Tandia "finally came out of the dorm, and he just kind of, like, rushed me and grabbed my breast[]"and tried to "grab [her] butt," but she blocked him with her hand. Darla testified as follows:
He's still coming toward me. So, I couldn't get out the door because he's still here. And I am pushing him away steadily trying to push him away. And he's still coming. One of the detainees in the hallway sees it through the window. He opens the door and grab[s] him. That was the only way I was able to get out.
Darla testified that when he grabbed her breast, he grabbed so hard that she had a hard time taking his hand off of her, yet he was still "coming at" her, and another detainee pushed Tandia off of her. According to Darla, by this time, Tandia was clothed, but she could see that he had just come from the shower because he was wet. When asked whether Tandia had an erection, she replied that she did not "feel anything[]" and she was not looking for that, and she was just trying to get him off of her. Darla testified that Tandia grabbed or cupped her breasts one time, but after she pried his hands off her, he started grabbing her closer to him by her uniform shirt. According to Darla, she did not notice any bruising or marks where Tandia grabbed her, but "it did hurt for a little while[.]"
Darla further testified that Tandia was pulling her back toward the wall and was trying to corner her. During the incident, Darla was screaming and she was thinking that if he pulled her close enough to him, the other detainees would come in, and she would be "one female in this small space with a lot of males." Darla testified that she felt like she was being attacked during the incident, she was scared, and she thought it could have been worse because he was "so aggressive." When asked whether she thought Tandia's actions were a fight or a sexual advance, she replied that for her, it was a fight and she was fighting not to be raped, and for Tandia, it could have been sexual.
Darla recalled that, once she got into the hallway, she shut the door and left to get someone of a higher rank. Darla testified that detainees flirt with the female officers "all the time[,]" and "we can't control that, but we can control [them] putting [their] hands on us." Darla also testified that she was in shock, and she had never seen something like this happen before. She stated that she did not give Tandia permission to touch her at any time.
On cross-examination, Darla testified that she did not know why Tandia was in the detention facility, and she did not speak French, although most of the people in the dorm where she was working spoke French. Darla explained that she did not know why the five people she called were on the medical list that day, and the reasons could include getting medicine, getting dental care, or getting mental health care. Darla did not know whether Tandia had reported mental health issues, and she did not know what kind of medication he was taking. Darla recalled that, after the incident, Tandia had gone back to bed, and she went to get a captain, who came back to the dorm with others and pulled Tandia out of bed and took him to the office. About thirty minutes later, the local police arrived, she gave them a statement, and they arrested Tandia. Darla did not recall whether Tandia had flirted with her before this incident, and she did not know Tandia's sexual orientation. Darla also testified that she did not know whether cameras in the hallways would have captured the incident.
Defense Motions
After the close of the State's case, the defense moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not offered evidence of intent to be sexually gratified. The trial court denied the motion and explained there was at least a scintilla of evidence of sexual gratification for the jury to decide.
The defense then moved for a mistrial stating "discovery was not provided"- specifically, video from the detention center about which Darla had testified. The State responded that it had provided the defense with all evidence it was given. The trial court explained that the detention center involved in this incident is a private facility not under state control and denied the motion.
Testimony of Yakouba Tandia
Yakouba Tandia ("Yakouba"), Yahya Tandia's brother, testified for the defense. Yakouba testified that he grew up in Mauritania, and at the time of trial, he was living in Kentucky. He explained that he is married with three children, and he works as an exporter and Uber driver. According to Yakouba, he has a close relationship with his brother Yahya, and he did not want his brother to be found guilty.
Yakouba testified that his brother Yahya has schizophrenia and is supposed to take medication. He further testified that he had called the detention center to tell them what medication Yahya needed to take, however Yakouba did not know whether Yahya got that medication. Yakouba testified that he was familiar with Yahya's romantic relationships, and that he believed Yahya is a homosexual because Yakouba saw Yahya holding hands with another man.
On cross-examination, Yakouba agreed that he was not present during the incident giving rise to this case, he did not see what happened, and he did not know what Yahya intended. Yakouba also agreed that because he was not present when the incident occurred, he did not know whether Yahya committed the offense with which he was charged.
The defense rested its case without calling further witnesses and renewed its motion for directed verdict, which the trial court denied. After deliberation, the jury found Tandia guilty as charged. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Tandia to 100 days in county jail. Tandia timely appealed.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In a single issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, he asserts that there was no evidence he had the required intent to "arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the defendant." See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.012(a)(1). According to Appellant, the testimonial evidence is insufficient to allow a jury to reasonably infer that Appellant intended to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Appellant points to his brother's testimony that he believed Appellant is homosexual, and Darla's testimony that when she initially called for Appellant, he opened the shower curtain and then closed it, which Appellant claims is inconsistent with an intent to gratify or arouse sexual desires. Appellant's brief does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that he touched Darla's breast without her consent.
During closing argument at trial, defense counsel told the jury, "you can believe her beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault occurred."
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We give deference to the factfinder's responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. If the record contains conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved such facts in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The jury as factfinder is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, and a jury may believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. See Febus v. State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d 912, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)); Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A jury may also draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial. Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the evidence, nor does it substitute its own judgment for that of the factfinder. Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 572; Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
"Direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally: 'Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.'" Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778 (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the defendant as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction. Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Section 22.012 ("Indecent Assault") of the Texas Penal Code provides, in pertinent part:
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the other person's consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person:
(1) touches the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person[.] .... (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor[.]Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.012(a)(1), (b). Therefore, the State had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant, with the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire, and without Darla's consent, touched Darla's breast. See id. "By its nature, a culpable mental state must generally be inferred from the circumstances." Romano v. State, 610 S.W.3d 30, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). "[A] culpable mental state must generally be inferred from the circumstances[,]" and we infer a defendant's mental state from his acts, words, and conduct. See Nisbett v. State, 552 S.W.3d 244, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); see also McKenzie v. State, 617 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (citing Turner v. State, 600 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)); Marino v. State, Nos. 09-15-00350-CR &09-15-00351-CR, 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 9214, at **18-19 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Aug. 24, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (specific intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire can be inferred from defendant's conduct and words, and from the surrounding circumstances) (citing McKenzie, 617 S.W.2d at 216). It is not necessary that the defendant verbally express an intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desires. See Bazanes v. State, 310 S.W.3d 32, 40 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd).
Darla testified that, when she entered the dorm unit, Tandia pulled back the shower curtain and "flashed" her while he was naked. She also testified that, a few minutes later, while she was waiting for Tandia with other detainees, Tandia "rushed" her and grabbed or "cupped" her breast in a way that made it hard for her to pull his hand off of her. Darla testified that Tandia also tried to grab her "butt." According to Darla, when she pried Tandia's hand off her breast, he grabbed her uniform shirt and pulled her towards him. Darla testified that she felt scared, she was fighting not to be raped, that Tandia was trying to pin her against the wall, and she thought the incident might have been sexual for Tandia. Darla also testified that it was common for the male detainees to flirt with her or other female officers, but she could not recall if Tandia had ever flirted with her.
Darla also testified that she did not know if Tandia had an erection during the incident. Tandia's brother testified that Tandia had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and needed medication. The brother also testified that he believed Tandia was homosexual because he had seen Tandia holding hands with another man.
It is within the jury's province to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326); Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778. The jury could have inferred from Yahya Tandia's conduct and words, and from the surrounding circumstances, as well as from the testimony of Darla, that Yahya had the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire when he assaulted Darla. See Nisbett, 552 S.W.3d at 267; McKenzie, 617 S.W.2d at 216. The jury could have disbelieved Yakouba's testimony or could have given it little to no weight. See Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 572. Deferring to the jury's role as factfinder to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a reasonable factfinder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury could have inferred Appellant had the intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire from his conduct and the circumstances. See Romano, 610 S.W.3d at 35; Nisbett, 552 S.W.3d at 267; Febus, 542 S.W.3d at 572. We overrule Appellant's issue.
Having overruled Appellant's issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.
AFFIRMED.