“Schuler argues that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he “touched [Victim] for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire.”
Section 566.101.1 states: “A person commits the offense of sexual abuse in the second degree if he or she purposefully subjects another person to sexual contact without that person’s consent.” “Sexual contact” is defined as “any touching . . . of the genitals or anus of any person, or the breast of any female person, or such touching through the clothing, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person[.]” § 566.010(3).
The Eastern District of this Court has indicated that: Because direct evidence of a defendant’s intent is rarely available, the State most often proves intent through circumstantial evidence. In assessing whether a defendant touched another for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, a jury may infer intent from the surrounding circumstances or from the sexual nature of the act itself. State v. Ganzorig, 533 S.W.3d 824, 830 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017).
As relevant here, the Ganzorig court held that “[t]ouching a woman’s vagina is an inherently sexual act, which can alone serve as evidence of Defendant’s intent to arouse or gratify either his or her sexual desire.” Id. Schuler was not a doctor performing a medical exam—he was a man who went to a Walmart, approached a female stranger from behind, and intentionally grabbed her genitals without her consent. When challenged by Victim, Schuler lied about it. While absconding from the scene, Schuler tried to discredit Victim by loudly calling for security. Security personnel arrived, but Schuler fled without talking to them. See State v. Hooper, 552 S.W.3d 123, 137 (Mo.App. S.D. 2018) (the factfinder “may draw inferences as to a defendant’s intentions and motives from the defendant’s conduct before the act, during the act, and after the act.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The evidence, and its reasonable available inferences, warranted the conclusion that Schuler grabbed Victim’s genitals for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his own sexual desire. See section 566.010(3). The trial court did not err in so finding. Schuler’s point is denied. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”
State v. Schuler, SD35312, decided November 5, 2018.