MCFADDEN, P. J., BRANCH and BETHEL, JJ.
McFadden, Presiding Judge.
Arthur Kruel, Jr., appeals from his convictions for child
molestation (OCGA § 16-6-4 (a)) and third degree cruelty
to children (OCGA § 16-5-70 (d)). He challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court
should have granted him a new trial on the general grounds,
but the evidence met the standard set forth in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560)
(1979). He argues that the trial court erred in ruling that a
witness was qualified to give expert opinion testimony, but
the trial court did not abuse his discretion in this regard.
And Kruel argues that the trial court erred in requiring him
to register as a sex offender as part of his sentence, but
the trial court was authorized to do so under OCGA §
42-1-12. So we affirm.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions. In reviewing this challenge, the "relevant
question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v.
Virginia, supra, 443 U.S. at 319 (III) (B) (emphasis in
viewed, the evidence showed that in late August 2012, Kruel
was babysitting nine-year-old R. H. and her twin brother, D.
H., at Kruel's house. While R. H. sat on Kruel's lap
on a sofa, Kruel touched her vaginal area with his hand and
placed a small vibrating massager between her open legs,
holding it there for up to a minute and a half even though
she told him to stop. D. H. was nearby and witnessed the
incident with the massager.
addition, Kruel brushed R. H.'s vaginal area with his
hand as he helped her put on a cut-off jean skirt that he had
made for her, which resembled a skirt worn by a model in an
adult magazine, titled "Young and Wild, " found in
a kitchen cabinet in Kruel's house. The skirt was so
short it showed R. H.'s underwear when she bent over.
Kruel accompanied R. H. as she played outside while wearing
evidence authorized the trial court to find Kruel guilty of
two counts of child molestation for touching R. H.'s
vagina with his hand and with the massager. A person commits
the offense of child molestation, among other ways, when he
"[d]oes any immoral or indecent act to or in the
presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with
the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either
the child or the person[.]" OCGA § 16-6-4 (a) (1).
Kruel admitted at trial that he held the massager between R.
H.'s legs and that he may have brushed his hand against
her vaginal area, he argues that there was no evidence that
he did so with the intent to arouse his or the girl's
sexual desires. He specifically points to a lack of evidence
that either he or R. H. was actually aroused. But
[t]he child molestation statute does not require proof of . .
. actual arousal. Instead, the law requires only that the
defendant have acted with the intent to arouse his [or the
child's] sexual desires. The question of intent is
peculiarly a question of fact for determination by the
[finder of fact, who] may infer a defendant's intent from
the evidence presented at trial. Where the [finder of fact]
finds the requisite intent, that finding will not be reversed
on appeal provided there is some evidence supporting the
[finder of fact's] inference.
Brown v. State, 324 Ga.App. 718, 720-721 (1) (751
S.E.2d 517) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). See
Parrott v. State, 318 Ga.App. 545, 553 (3) (736
S.E.2d 436) (2012) (whether defendant's intentions were
innocent or to arouse his own sexual desires was peculiarly a
question of fact for the factfinder).
evidence in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, supported the trial court's inference
that Kruel intended to arouse his or R. H.'s sexual
desires. Kruel touched R. H.'s vaginal area with both his
hand and a massager. He held the massager in place between
the girl's open legs despite her request that he stop. He
made for R. H. a revealing skirt similar to one worn by a
model in an adult magazine in his possession. And he
accompanied the girl outside as she played in the revealing
skirt. From this evidence, a "rational trier of fact
could have found [Kruel] guilty of child molestation beyond a
reasonable doubt." Wiley v. State, 271 Ga.App.
393, 396 (1) (609 S.E.2d 731) (2005) (citations and
punctuation omitted) (affirming conviction of defendant who
excessively viewed pornography and admitted touching and
viewing his daughter's unclothed vagina multiple times,
but asserted that he did so for medical reasons). See
Reyes-Vera v. State, 313 Ga.App. 467, 469 (722
S.E.2d 95) (2011) (affirming conviction of defendant who
touched child inappropriately, fondled his buttocks, rubbed
his body, and attempted to kiss him); Andrew v.
State, 216 Ga.App. 427, 428 (454 S.E.2d 542) (1995)
(affirming conviction of defendant who "tickled"
his daughter's vagina and, on more than one occasion
while she was in bed, "pressed a hard, oval shaped
object that was long like a pen against her vagina").