## Facts

- Eight-year-old B.T. and her ten-year-old brother walked home along a busy street sidewalk after a store trip.
- A man carrying a closed umbrella approached; the children moved against a fence to let him pass.
- Instead of passing, the man grabbed B.T.’s arm, put an arm around her waist, and tried to pull her away.
- B.T. screamed; her brother held her hand; a brief “tug of war” occurred.
- After a driver honked, the man released B.T. and walked away; the children reported the incident to their mother.
- Police arrested Tommy G. Laster after the mother spotted him nearby and the children identified him.
- In a written statement, Laster said voices told him to “grab the little girl” and he grabbed her around the waist; he said he let go when he realized how it would look in daylight traffic.
- A jury convicted Laster of injury to a child and attempted aggravated kidnapping; he challenged sufficiency on the attempted aggravated kidnapping count.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate courts may review circumstantial evidence of intent “less rigorously” than other elements of an offense.
2. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove attempted aggravated kidnapping, including specific intent to abduct (restraint with intent to prevent liberation by secreting/holding) and a statutorily required aggravating purpose.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the intermediate court erred by suggesting circumstantial evidence of intent is reviewed less rigorously than other elements.
- The court reaffirmed that direct and circumstantial evidence are assessed under the same sufficiency standards.
- Applying the proper standards, the court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support attempted aggravated kidnapping.
- The court affirmed the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Circumstantial evidence is not subject to a lower appellate sufficiency standard than direct evidence; all elements are reviewed under the same framework.
- Legal sufficiency asks whether, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Attempt requires specific intent to commit the target offense plus an act beyond mere preparation that tends but fails to effect commission.
- For kidnapping, “abduct” requires restraint with intent to prevent liberation by secreting/holding the person where unlikely to be found (or by deadly force); aggravated kidnapping adds an additional statutorily specified purpose.
- Intent may be inferred from conduct, surrounding circumstances, and the defendant’s statements; appellate review defers to reasonable inferences the jury could draw from the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court corrected an improper appellate formulation that treated circumstantial proof of intent as subject to weaker review, but still affirmed because the jury could reasonably infer from Laster’s conduct and statement that he took a substantial step toward abducting the child with an aggravating purpose, making the evidence legally and factually sufficient for attempted aggravated kidnapping.


Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)