Shun Eric Simon v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00095-CR
__________________

SHUN ERIC SIMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F20-34379-0
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Shun Eric Simon appeals his conviction for continuous trafficking

of persons, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20A.03(a), (e). A grand

jury indictment alleged that Simon

in Jefferson County, Texas, during a period that was thirty (30) or more
days in duration . . . from on or about the 12th day of September, 2019,
through on or about the 22nd day of October, 2019, and anterior to the
presentment of this indictment, engage[d] two or more times in conduct
that constitutes an offense under Section 20A.02—Trafficking of
Persons, namely:

1
The Defendant [] knowingly traffic[ked] [Susan1], a child
younger than 18 years of age, and by any means caused [Susan] to
engage in or become the victim of conduct prohibited by Section
43.05—Compelling Prostitution; and
The Defendant [] knowingly receive[d] a benefit from
participating in a venture that involved trafficking [Susan], a child
younger than 18 years of age, and by any means caused [Susan] to
engage in or become the victim of conduct prohibited by Section
43.05—Compelling Prostitution[. 2]

1
We use pseudonyms to refer to the victim and her mother. 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”).
2
The jury was instructed that it could have found Simon guilty of Continuous
Trafficking of Persons on either of the two grounds alleged in the indictment. The
jury charge instructed the jury as follows:
Now, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt that Shun Eric Simon did then and there in Jefferson County,
Texas, during a period that was thirty (30) or more days in duration, to
wit; from on or about the 12th day of September, 2019, through on or
about the 22nd day of October 2019, and anterior to the presentment of
the indictment, engaged two or more times in conduct that constitutes
Trafficking of Persons, namely:
1. The Defendant did knowingly traffic [Susan], a child younger
than 18 years of age, and by any means caused [Susan] to
engage in, or become the victim of, conduct prohibited by the
Texas Penal Code, namely, Compelling Prostitution; or
2. The Defendant knowingly received a benefit from
participating in a venture that involved trafficking [Susan], a
child younger than 18 years of age, and by any means caused
[Susan] to engage in, or become the victim of, conduct
prohibited by the Texas Penal Code, namely Compelling
Prostitution;
then you shall find the Defendant GUILTY of the offense of
Continuous Trafficking of Persons.
2
Simon pleaded “not guilty,” and a jury found Simon guilty as charged in the

indictment and assessed punishment at thirty-eight years of imprisonment. Simon

timely filed a notice of appeal. In one issue, Simon challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. We affirm.

Evidence at Trial

Testimony of Amy

Amy, Susan’s mother, testified that Susan was twenty-one at the time of trial.

According to Amy, Susan’s father was in and out of Susan’s life growing up, and

Susan has “[a]nxiety, bipolar, and depression[]” and takes prescribed medication for

her conditions. Amy testified that Susan has been treated by a psychiatrist since she

was in the sixth grade and her anger issues over the years have progressively gotten

worse. Amy testified that Susan has received both inpatient and outpatient mental

health treatment, Susan does not always take her medication, and she gets angry

when she does not take it, or when she is told “no,” or when someone tells her they

are going to do something and then does not follow through. According to Amy,

when Susan gets angry she “goes ballistic[,] [s]he tear[s] stuff up, she calls [Amy]

names, she calls the police, . . . run[s] away, just whatever comes to her mind.” Amy

testified that Susan started running away at about age sixteen, she runs away at least

twice a month, and she is often gone “till things g[e]t bad on the streets[]” and she

3
returns home. Sometimes, Susan was not allowed in Amy’s home because Amy

“was tired of repairing [her] property that [Susan] was destroying[.]”

According to Amy, when Susan began dating Simon in 2019, Amy thought

he looked much older than Susan, and he told Amy that he was twenty-one years

old. Amy testified that she believed him, and when she told him that Susan was only

seventeen years old, “he said he didn’t care[,]” and later Amy found out that Simon

was much older than twenty-one. Amy testified that Simon began coming to Amy’s

house more often and initially he was not allowed to stay there because she did not

know him, but then Amy later allowed him to stay at the house because Susan kept

running away with him and Amy felt like it was better and safer than Susan being

“on the streets.” According to Amy, when Susan ran away Amy would often find

her at “like a trap house” where drugs and illegal activity were common or hiding at

a park. Amy testified it was a difficult decision for her to allow Simon to stay at her

house, that she tried to set “ground rules” for Susan and Simon while living at her

house, but that the rules did not work, and Susan and Simon would come and go

from the house whenever they wanted and without telling Amy where they were

going. Amy testified that Susan and Simon would fight often and sometimes would

sleep all day. After a couple of months, Amy caught Susan and Simon at the house

smoking something that looked like a blunt “that didn’t smell like average

marijuana[]” and she asked them to leave. After this incident, Amy thought Susan

4
was engaging in more drug use because she would smoke a substance and be asleep

in a matter of seconds. Amy often had to call the Beaumont Police Department to

come to her house because of disturbances resulting from disagreements between

Amy and Susan and between Amy and Simon. At one point, Amy had to have the

Beaumont Police Department issue a trespass warning to Simon to keep him from

coming to her house but he still came back and Amy had to call the police. Amy

testified that Susan would become “[e]rratic[,]” “go off on the deep end[,]” and chase

after Simon when Amy would prevent him from being at the house.

So that Amy could get in touch with Susan, Amy gave Susan a cell phone

through T-Mobile that was activated on August 18, 2019, but Susan told Amy she

lost the phone in October of 2019. Amy thought the phone would be found, but after

it was not found, Amy terminated the phone’s service on August 16, 2020. Amy

verified from T-Mobile business records admitted into evidence that the records

matched the phone number for the cell phone she had given Susan. According to

Amy, she was not aware that Susan was being trafficked during August, September,

and October of 2019. Amy explained that had she known Susan was being trafficked,

she would have notified law enforcement. Amy testified that when she was at the

courthouse related to charges against Susan for assault on a public servant, she

learned that the Beaumont Police Department was investigating the trafficking of

Susan. Amy testified that in hindsight, some of Susan’s and Simon’s activities at the

5
house were concerning, like one incident when Simon had been “trespassed

warn[ed]” but she found him naked, hiding in a closet, and Susan in her underwear.

In another incident when a UPS worker had parked outside around the corner of her

house at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m., she saw the UPS worker and Susan talking and then saw

them hug, after which the UPS worker left. On both of these occasions, Amy called

the police. In hindsight and in reflecting on these situations, however, Amy

explained that she believed Susan and Simon were “setting up some illegal activity.”

Testimony of Detective Charles Duchamp

Charles Duchamp, a detective with the criminal investigation division for the

Beaumont Police Department, testified that he received extensive training related to

human trafficking and he trains other officers on how to recognize indicators that

trafficking may be taking place. According to Detective Duchamp, on October 24,

2019, the Beaumont Police Department received a tip from the National Human

Trafficking Hotline made by Susan’s dad that Susan was being trafficked by an

individual named “Shawn,” and the tip provided a phone number that was listed in

online ads. Duchamp testified that law enforcement uses tools such as Traffic Jam

and Spotlight to scroll ads when looking for and investigating trafficking victims

online, and these tools filter the ads on websites like Skipthegames and can group

together ads that may be related based on the ads having a common phone number

or a shared photograph. Duchamp testified that when he ran the phone number

6
provided in the tip through one of these tools, ads revealed photographs of a female

whom Duchamp was able to identify as Susan by locating Susan’s previous mugshot

from software used by the Jefferson County jail. Duchamp testified that at that point

he believed he had verified a potential case involving human trafficking of a minor

child. According to Duchamp, the Beaumont Police Department had a previous

interaction with Susan on October 22, 2019, and they had taken her to jail, so she

was incarcerated at the Jefferson County jail when Duchamp began investing the tip.

Duchamp testified that patrol unit camera footage from the incidents with Susan that

were uploaded into the Department’s system helped confirm that Susan was the

individual depicted in the photographs in the ads. Duchamp testified that the

Beaumont Police Department’s records management system also identified previous

contacts the Department had with Susan and an individual named “Shun.” Duchamp

identified State’s Exhibit 18 as a still image from the patrol unit from the video he

reviewed of a Beaumont Police officer’s interaction with Susan and Simon on

October 21, 2019, and the exhibit was admitted into evidence. According to

Duchamp, the interaction was near a hotel on College Street, and the footage

supported the hotline tip because Simon was an older male subject with Susan, who

was younger, and they were together in the footage. Duchamp testified that at the

time of the incident, Shun Simon would have been around thirty-three years old,

which concerned him because trafficking cases often involve an older male taking

7
advantage of a younger female. Duchamp identified Shun Simon as the defendant at

trial.

Duchamp testified that Skipthegames is a website where a user will create a

username and password to log on and use the service and post ads. According to

Duchamp, an email address and phone number are required to sign up for the service,

and once an ad is posted, phone calls and texting are the predominant ways that

“buyers” communicate with the person they are trying to reach in the ad. Duchamp

testified that, based on his training and experience, Skipthegames is aware that their

website involves a lot of illegal activity, but the administrator of the website

cooperates with law enforcement and investigations to provide subscriber

information (such as names, phone numbers, and dates the ads were created) when

law enforcement submits requests for subscriber information for specific ads.

Duchamp identified State’s Exhibit 19 as the records Skipthegames provided

to him after he requested information on “several dozen” ads related to his

investigation in this case, and the exhibit was admitted into evidence. Duchamp

testified that from these records he learned that three Skipthegames accounts were

associated with ads involving Susan, and that often multiple ads of Susan would be

posted on the same day. According to Duchamp, it is common for there to be

multiple accounts associated on Skipthegames because the website only allows a

user to post a limited amount and by having multiple accounts a user may have their

8
ad appear more often and at the top to get more views. Often in trafficking cases,

multiple phones are also involved so that one phone may be logged for one account

and another phone logged for another account. Duchamp testified that the ads on

Skipthegames have a unique vernacular often used among the “buyers” and the

individuals selling sex, including the use of initials of sex acts, and terms such as

“dates” for meeting up to buy sex, “donation” for payment for sex acts, “roses” for

dollars (i.e., 80 roses refers to $80), “lick” for the “buyer” of sex, “hitting a lick” for

someone coming to buy sex, “QV” for a quick visit (typically fifteen minutes) for

sex, and “HR” for an hour of sex. Duchamp testified that probably “five to ten buyers

respond to one ad.” Duchamp’s Department would post “decoy ads” to elicit

“buyers” for underaged girls and sometimes within a minute a text message comes

through, although some “buyers” want to talk on the phone to verify the ad was not

posted by law enforcement. Sometimes the phone number associated with the ad

would be in the title on the photograph in the ad, or if not, the “buyer” could contact

the phone number associated with the ad by clicking on a button on the ad that

provides the “buyer” with the phone number to text or call.

Duchamp testified that as a result of his investigation in this case,

Skipthegames cancelled the user accounts associated with the ads. One of the user

accounts involved in the posting of ads of Susan was associated with an email

address that included Simon’s first and last name. According to Duchamp, the

9
Skipthegames records indicated that the account using Simon’s name in the email

address was first accessed on September 12, 2019, and an ad was posted from that

user account with a phone number in the title of the ad that matched the phone

number provided by the hotline tip, except the last digit had been left off. Duchamp

testified that fifty-two ads of Susan were posted from that user account, and the last

ad was posted on October 22, 2019.

Duchamp testified that the second and third user accounts were email

addresses that included Susan’s first and last name. According to Duchamp, fifty-

seven ads of Susan were posted from September 22, 2019 through October 9, 2019

from the second user account, and thirty-one ads of Susan were posted from the third

user account from October 1, 2019 through October 10, 2019. Duchamp testified

that there was a lot of overlap of the dates of posting ads from the three accounts,

and a total of 140 ads of Susan were posted of Susan from September 12, 2019 to

October 22, 2019.

Duchamp testified that his investigation revealed three phone numbers were

associated with the ads involving Susan. Based on his training and experience and

his investigation that included among other things subpoenas to cell phone service

providers and TextNow, he believed that one of the phone numbers associated with

the ads involving Susan was for the phone that belonged to Susan that her mother

had purchased for her, one of the phone numbers was for a “burner phone” that

10
belonged to Simon, and one of the phone numbers was linked to a TextNow texting

app that does not use an actual carrier service and is not an actual separate phone,

but the number was also associated with one of Susan’s email accounts and her first

and last name were used in the user name for the TextNow account. Duchamp

learned through a subpoena response from Google that the email account that

included Simon’s first and last names in the account name and that was used for the

Skipthegames user account that posted ads involving Susan was associated with a

“Shun Simon,” and State’s Exhibit 31, which included the records from Google was

admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified that, based on the information provided

by Google, he believed that the email account belonged to Simon. Duchamp testified

that he subpoenaed records from Apple for records related to the other two email

accounts associated with the ads involving Susan that had her first and last name in

the account name, and Apple’s response to the subpoenas resulted in the production

of records that led Duchamp to believe that one of the accounts was Susan’s because

it was tied to her phone number. As for the other email account with Susan’s first

and last name in the account name that was associated with the ads involving Susan,

Duchamp testified that, although he was unable to obtain records on that account, he

had no reason to believe that the email belonged to someone other than Susan.

Duchamp identified State’s Exhibits 20 through 30 as eleven of the ads of

Susan on Skipthegames that he obtained from the website and that were

11
representative of the 140 total ads involving Susan. The exhibits were admitted into

evidence. Duchamp testified that the ads were sexually explicit and that the

photographs of Susan included in the ads were considered child pornography under

Texas law. 3 Duchamp testified that during his investigation he learned that some of

the photographs of Susan in the ads were taken at Susan’s mother’s house and that

the backgrounds of the photographs were consistent with rooms and furniture in

Susan’s home. He also was able to identify Susan as the person in the photographs

because of her face and identifying tattoos.

According to Duchamp, a search warrant was obtained for the phone number

that was linked to Simon.4 The phone was located in Susan’s property at the

Jefferson County jail when Susan was arrested on October 22, 2019.

Photographs of the phone were admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified that

another detective used software to extract data from Simon’s phone. After the

investigation, Duchamp received the same certification, and in preparation for trial

he used the same method to pull the data from the phone because the other detective

3
Because Simon concedes that Susan was engaging in prostitution through
these ads, we need not describe in detail the ads or photographs. See Tex. R. App. P.
47.1.
4
Susan testified that this phone number was the number for the phone that
belonged to Simon, and Duchamp ultimately concluded that it was Simon’s phone
because it had numerous pictures of Simon on it, texts to Susan’s phone number, the
photographs of Susan used in the Skipthegames ads, and an email account on the
phone that had Simon’s first and last names in the account name.
12
was out of town and could not testify. State’s Exhibit 42, a preliminary device report

for the cell phone that provides specifics such as the kind, model number, phone

number, and vendor for the phone, was admitted into evidence. State’s Exhibit 43,

an extraction report from Duchamp’s extraction of the phone’s data that identified

wireless networks accessed by Simon’s phone, was admitted into evidence.

Duchamp testified that one of the wireless networks the phone had used was the

wireless network for the hotel on College Street, a hotel Duchamp testified is often

used to facilitate prostitution. State’s Exhibit 44, records of a user account for

Skipthegames that was created on September 12, 2019, with the email account that

included Simon’s first and last name and was associated with the ads involving

Susan, was admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified that this information was

stored in Simon’s phone and extracted from the phone. According to Duchamp,

State’s Exhibit 48, a web history for Simon’s phone, was admitted into evidence,

and it showed that the phone had accessed the Skipthegames website 601 times in a

short time frame, that the last time the website was accessed was on October 22,

2019, and the dates that ads were posted from the phone to the website matched dates

when Susan’s ads were posted. Duchamp testified that he found no evidence from

the phone that revealed payments through apps like CashApp or Venmo, and that

Duchamp believed that the payments Susan and Simon received were made in cash.

State’s Exhibit 45, which Duchamp identified as a call log from Simon’s phone to

13
Susan’s phone number, was admitted into evidence, and Duchamp testified that the

call log showed that the first call between Simon’s phone and Susan’s phone was on

September 28, 2019, and the last call between the phones was on October 21, 2019,

the day Simon was arrested. Duchamp also testified that State’s Exhibit 46 was a

report showing “thumbnails” of images extracted from Simon’s phone. According

to Duchamp, the report shows images of Susan, and some of the images of Susan

are on the ads. State’s Exhibits 46A through 46U, the individual images from that

report, were admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified that these photographs, along

with the information fields from the report admitted as State’s Exhibit 46, helped

him determine that the phone was the phone that took the same photo of Susan that

was posted on the ad and that the phone was used to exploit Susan. Duchamp also

testified that, in his opinion, some of the photographs of Susan on Simon’s phone

and posted in the ads were taken by someone other than Susan. According to

Duchamp, the fact that the phone also contained images of Simon helped corroborate

that the phone belonged to Simon.

Duchamp also testified that Simon’s phone contained text messages with

people attempting to solicit sex based on the ads involving Susan, and that reports

admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibits 49 through 58 represent the text

conversations between Simon’s phone and “buyers” that were soliciting sex in

exchange for money. According to Duchamp, the language used in the texts was

14
common for how “buyers” communicate with people they are contacting with the

ads, such as discussing “rate,” meet-up locations, verifying that the ad is not fake or

law enforcement, asking for more photographs, and using terms such as “donation”

to mean money, “hh” to mean a half-hour visit, and “QV” to mean a fifteen minute

quick visit. Some of the texts between the potential “buyers” and Simon’s phone

also specifically referred to sexual acts instead of using vague language. Duchamp

testified that photographs of Susan were sent from Simon’s phone when potential

“buyers” would ask for more photographs, and texts negotiating the amount of

money to be paid for certain acts on “dates” were sent from Simon’s phone.

According to Duchamp, the texts often suggested meeting up at the hotel on College.

One “buyer,” Duchamp explained, sent a text to Simon’s phone, in which the buyer

asked whether the person was “From skip the game.” The person that had Simon’s

phone responded, “Yes.” Relying on the texts that police extracted from Simon’s

phone following its search, Duchamp testified that one potential “buyer” texted

asking for an explicit photograph, and the person with Simon’s phone then texted a

photograph of Susan’s genitals to the potential “buyer.”

Duchamp testified that it was important that he found many text messages on

the phone between Susan’s phone and Simon’s phone, and State’s Exhibit 59, a

report of the text messages between them and extracted from Simon’s phone, was

admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified specifically as to several of the texts and

15
that, based on his training and experience, these texts showed the following: (1)

Simon helping Susan negotiate prices and meeting places and communicating with

“buyers” despite Susan having her own phone; (2) Simon attempting to “keep tabs”

on Susan by making sure her phone was charged and checking her location to know

what was happening with the money she was earning; (3) Simon texting her asking

her to text him when she was finished with a “buyer” so he could make sure more

time was not spent with the “buyer” than was paid for; (4) Susan texting Simon

letting him know how far away the next “buyer” was from their scheduled meeting

place; (5) Simon controlling the money by questioning whether Susan was getting

paid the right amount and her responses that she had not spent the money; (6) Simon

texting her to buy him food with the money he earned; and, (7) when Susan

questioned who the money she earned belonged to, the text Simon sent her states,

“For us.”

Duchamp testified that law enforcement attempts to focus on the victim in

these situations and get them help, that often the victims have had bad experiences

with law enforcement, and that the “trauma bond” between the victim and trafficker

is often strong because they think the trafficker “loves them.” According to

Duchamp, after his investigation, he contacted Susan’s court-appointed attorney for

Susan’s other criminal case and let her know about his investigation and how Susan

had been exploited, but Susan was initially not ready to talk with law enforcement

16
or consent to a SANE exam. After Susan was in jail for several months, Duchamp

learned that Susan was willing to have a medical exam, and Duchamp arranged for

her to be transported to St. Elizabeth Hospital for the SANE interview and exam.

Duchamp testified that in January of 2020, Susan’s court-appointed attorney for the

other case contacted Duchamp and said Susan was willing to talk to him, and

arranged to conduct her interview at the courthouse on the same day the trial court

conducted her hearing in the other case. According to Duchamp, in the past law

enforcement was not focused on getting help for victims of these types of offenses

and it would be reasonable for Susan to think that she was in some kind of trouble

and scared to talk. Duchamp testified that Simon had been released from jail and

showed up at Susan’s hearing and they made him leave, and that although he did not

believe Susan knew Simon was there, Duchamp believed that Simon was attempting

to intimidate Susan, and Simon’s presence could have been detrimental to Susan and

potentially affected her willingness to talk to Duchamp. State’s Exhibit 60, a

photograph of Simon in the public gallery in the courtroom on the day of that

hearing, was admitted into evidence. Duchamp testified he interviewed Susan after

the hearing.

Duchamp testified that, based on his investigation and his training and

experience, he believed that Susan was “exploited and advertised on the internet”

and that this was something that Simon and Susan were doing together. Duchamp

17
testified that based on the evidence it was his opinion that when Susan lost her phone

for a period of time, Susan and Simon had shared a phone. He also thought that

Susan and Simon had both posted ads and were both likely texting with “buyers.”

Duchamp testified that in his opinion Simon had benefitted from Susan engaging in

prostitution by receiving food, a place to stay, cigarettes and cigars, narcotics, and

all of the things that they had purchased together by spending the proceeds from

Susan’s selling sexual services for money. Duchamp testified that from his

investigation, he believed that this was a situation where Susan was willing to

participate and work together with Simon, her trafficker, to engage in prostitution.

According to Duchamp, it is common for human trafficking victims to not know that

they are victims and for traffickers to convince the victims that they are voluntarily

engaging in prostitution by taking advantage of them and manipulating them into

believing that they are just making money together. Duchamp testified that Susan at

age seventeen was legally capable of consenting to having sex with Simon if she

wanted to, but that Susan was not capable of consenting to engaging in prostitution

or to becoming a victim of exploitation or human trafficking and that the human

trafficking offenses protect those up to age eighteen. Duchamp testified that even if

Susan came up with the idea to sell her body to make money, if Simon facilitates the

endeavor or receives a benefit such as money, food, drugs, or a place to stay from

the endeavor, then that is illegal sex trafficking. According to Duchamp, under the

18
statute for trafficking of persons, if the victim is under eighteen the trafficking can

be “by any means[,]” which can include helping to rent a hotel room or even

suggesting prostitution to someone under eighteen as a way for that child to make

money, and that force, fraud, or coercion is not required if the victim is under

eighteen. Duchamp testified that even if Susan believed at the time that she was

voluntarily engaging in prostitution, it was still illegal because she could not consent

to it because under the law she was a child.

Testimony of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)

The SANE testified that she performed an exam on seventeen-year-old Susan

at St. Elizabeth Hospital on December 18, 2019. The medical records from St.

Elizabeth Hospital were admitted into evidence. The SANE testified that at the time

of the exam Susan was considered a child under the law for trafficking because for

that purpose a child would be a person younger than 18 years old. According to the

SANE, Susan was brought in for the exam by correctional officers because Susan

was incarcerated at the time, and Susan consented to the exam. According to the

SANE, because Susan reported that her last sexual contact was more than five days

prior, the SANE performed a nonacute exam, meaning no forensic specimens were

collected.

The SANE testified that when she was documenting the history Susan

provided, Susan reported that Simon had been her boyfriend for four months and

19
that she had met him six or seven months earlier. According to the SANE, Susan

reported that on the day she met Simon at the park, she learned he did not have a

place to stay, Simon went home with Susan, and her mother agreed to let him stay

at the house temporarily despite knowing he was thirty-three years old. The SANE

testified that Susan reported that she first had sex with Simon at a motel about a

week after they met, that they had sexual intercourse fifteen or twenty times while

dating and oral sex about twenty-five times, and that Simon slept with her in her bed

until they were both arrested. The SANE testified that Susan reported that on the day

she was arrested, she was at the park, and she refused to go into the restroom with a

man, he took her five dollars and ran, and after she chased him, he punched her, she

bit his ear, and he called the police. The SANE testified that Susan stated that the

responding officer told Susan, “You’re going to jail,” and “I know exactly who you

are[,]” and he took her to jail.

The SANE testified that Susan did not mention engaging in prostitution and

only mentioned having two sexual partners – a boyfriend prior to her relationship

with Simon, and Simon. According to the SANE, it is common for trafficking

victims to refuse to admit to being trafficked. The SANE testified that although

Susan reported that Simon was her boyfriend, the SANE identified several “red

flags” that raised concerns that Simon was trafficking Susan: that Simon was older

than Susan; that she mentioned the motel room; that she had many dealings with law

20
enforcement; that law enforcement knew her as a different name; the story about the

events at the park leading up to her arrest that did not make sense and seemed like

there was “something more to it[;]” and that she was guarded when answering

questions, and that Susan paused for long periods after being asked a question and

responded with a vague answer. The SANE also testified that Susan’s mental health

history, including a suicide attempt several years before, a history of running away,

and an unstable home life, made her vulnerable to trafficking.

After performing the physical exam, the SANE testified that she noted in her

report that Susan had tattoos that are common with trafficking, that the genital exam

revealed two well-healed hymenal tears “consistent with a penetrative injury[,]” the

lab work indicated Susan tested positive for bacterial vaginosis, but Susan tested

negative for sexually transmitted diseases.

According to the SANE, victims of trafficking are often young and vulnerable

and feel cared for and important by those that are trafficking them. The SANE

testified that, based on her training and experience with treating trafficking victims,

it is a lengthy process for trafficking victims to acknowledge or talk about being

trafficked and that there is “a cycle of reward and punishment” similar to domestic

violence victims where the victims blame themselves and “can’t see the whole

picture.” The SANE testified that she has often treated patients for trafficking or

sexual abuse that deny the trafficking or sexual abuse, and even later when evidence

21
of the trafficking or sexual abuse surfaces, the victims still never acknowledge or

admit to it.

Susan’s Testimony

At the time of trial, Susan was twenty-one years old. Susan told the jury she

did not want to testify in the trial. Susan explained to the jury that at the time of trial

she was incarcerated, she had been incarcerated for two years, she had eight-and-a-

half months left on her sentence, and her incarceration was for convictions from

before she met Simon. According to Susan she did not want to go back to prison,

and when released from jail, she wants to “start over” with a job in cosmetology.

According to Susan, she had argued with her mother in the past, made bad choices,

and said things she regrets. She did not have much of a relationship with her father.

Susan testified that she has received treatment in the past for “[d]epression, [her]

temper, [and] making wrong decisions.” Susan testified that at the time of trial she

was taking medication for her mental health issues, but she did not think it was

helping. According to Susan, she has difficulty remembering things because her past

use of synthetic marijuana impacted her memory. Susan testified that she has been

sober “[g]oing on three years.” Susan testified that she was nervous about testifying,

and that it was “complicated” being present for Simon’s trial.

Susan identified the defendant as Simon and testified that she first met him in

2019 at a park in Beaumont, which was close to her mother’s house. According to

22
Susan, she met Simon when she was seventeen and Simon was in his early thirties,

and Susan had just broken up with her boyfriend. Susan testified that while she and

Simon dated, they would smoke synthetic marijuana and that her mother did not like

that Susan was dating Simon. Susan testified that her mother did not know Simon’s

age, and Simon would stay at her house sometimes. According to Susan, during that

time she and her mother would argue and Susan and Simon would leave and go stay

at another house. Susan testified they would also stay sometimes at a hotel on

College Street to get away and because she was “selling herself.”

Susan testified that Simon did not have a job and she and Simon would come

up with ways to make money like her “selling [her]self.” According to Susan, Simon

knew that she was “selling herself[,]” and that she would post naked photographs of

herself in ads she posted on the website Skipthegames, but she said that Simon did

not help her post the ads. Susan testified that she and Simon “shared a phone” and

the photos were on that phone, and she admitted that there was a Skipthegames

account with Simon’s email address. Susan testified that it would not surprise her if

there were three Skipthegames accounts used, but she only knew of two of them

“’cause when [Simon’s] phone broke, [she] made one on [her] phone.” Susan

testified that she would use the phone number for the phone her mother had given

her and Simon’s phone number to post her ads and that Simon knew she was using

his phone to post the ads. When asked at trial why she needed to use more than one

23
phone number to post her ads, she answered, “That’s a good question. I don’t know.

I just did it.” Susan testified that she also used a phone number from a texting app

called TextNow. At trial, Susan identified her phone number and Simon’s phone

numbers.5 Susan acknowledged that she knew that as part of the investigation law

enforcement had downloaded data from Simon’s phone.

According to Susan, she and Simon were stopped by Beaumont police in

October of 2019, after Simon “got into an argument with somebody, and Family

Dollar called the police.” Susan testified that she had drugs on her when the police

stopped them, that earlier that day at the motel Simon had the drugs, and that they

would pass the drugs back and forth because they shared drugs and money. Susan

testified that she did not know how Simon made money when he did not have a job.

When asked if Simon got his money from criminal activity, Susan answered, “Ms.

[Prosecutor], I don’t want to be here right now.” Susan admitted she was scared to

be at trial because she “d[id]n’t want anything to do with this.” According to Susan,

Simon never made her do anything she did not want to do, but she agreed that she

and Simon would do things that they should not be doing, such as having sex with

people for money. Susan admitted that having sex with people for money was the

5
The phone number Susan identified as her phone number matched the phone
number that Duchamp concluded belonged to Susan, and the phone number Susan
identified as Simon’s phone number matched the phone number that Duchamp
concluded was Simon’s and was the same phone that Duchamp obtained through a
search warrant and for which he performed the data extraction.
24
only way she could earn money, and she would buy things for Simon with the

money, like a gun she bought illegally and gave to him as a surprise.

According to Susan, from her ads posted on Skipthegames, she would have

an average of ten to fifteen male “buyers” that she would meet with in a day, and the

illegal drugs she was taking helped her become numb to what was going on. Susan

testified she charged the same thing every time, $150 or $80 for a fifteen minute

“visit.” Susan testified that the men she would meet up with were not always the

nicest of men, and that sometimes Simon was around to help make sure that she was

safe and nothing bad happened, but that she “did the texting for [her]self.” When

asked if Simon would ever text “buyers” for her and help arrange the “dates,” Susan

testified, “I mean, I can’t tell you what he did when I wasn’t there.” When asked if

the 131 pages of text messages downloaded from Simon’s phone would be the best

representation of what was going on between Susan and Simon during that time,

Susan answered, “Yes, ma’am.” When Susan was asked if there were text messages

in the 131 pages where Simon was telling Susan how much time to be with a date or

how much money to charge would that be accurate for what was going on back then,

Susan testified, “I don’t know.” Susan admitted that her answer was different from

her first answer, she still cared about Simon, and she did not remember the

passwords to Skipthegames or any of the email addresses.

25
She testified that she would give some of the money she earned from meeting

up with the men to Simon because “He was my dude[,]” and if Simon needed

something like food or drugs, she would buy it for him with the money she earned.

According to Susan, she and Simon could not rent a hotel room because she was not

old enough and he did not have identification, so the “buyers” would rent the room

and then after Susan’s “date” with the “buyer,” Simon and Susan would get to stay

in the room after the “buyer” left. Susan testified that she had never known Simon

to have a job, but that there was nothing preventing Simon from getting a job to

make money in a legal way.

On cross-examination, Susan testified that Simon knew what Susan was doing

to make money but that he had his own money, and she had her own money. Susan

testified that Simon did not encourage her to make money this way but that he “just

went with it[,]” he let her do what she wanted to do, he did not want her to earn her

money that way, and he did not post any of the ads for her or help her in any way

earn her money.

Issue on Appeal

In a single appellate issue, Simon challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the jury’s verdict. Simon concedes that “the phone records and ads

indicated that [Susan] was in fact engaging in prostitution[,]” and he does not contest

that she engaged in prostitution over a 30-day period during that time. Simon argues

26
that the State’s case “rested entirely upon the conjecture and opinions” of Detective

Duchamp and the SANE. According to Simon, Susan denied that Simon trafficked

her; Detective Duchamp’s testimony “was often couched in what happens very often

in trafficking cases, and then analogizing that to the investigation of [Simon];” the

evidence established that Susan and Simon “were romantically involved, used drugs

together, shared money, and shared their lives together, and nothing more[;]”

Duchamp assumed that the text messages from a phone number associated with

Simon were sent by him; Susan did not report to the SANE that Simon trafficked

Susan; and the SANE’s testimony consisted of concerns she gained during her

conversation with and examination of Susan “which were entirely conjecture and

unfounded opinion.” Simon argued that no rational juror could have found the

elements alleged in the indictment to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we review all the evidence

in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a 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

27
contains conflicting inferences, we must presume that the factfinder resolved such

facts in favor of the verdict and 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 it 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); Margraves v. State, 34 S.W.3d

912, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1995). 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. 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. Lucio v.

State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13;

Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

28
Section 20A.02 of the Texas Penal Code provides, among other things, that a

person commits the offense of “trafficking of persons” if he knowingly:

(7) traffics a child . . . and by any means causes the trafficked child
. . . to engage in, or become the victim of, conduct prohibited by:
...
(H) Section 43.05 (Compelling Prostitution);
. . . [or]
(8) receives a benefit from participating in a venture that involves an
activity described by Subdivision (7)[.]

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20A.02(a)(7)(H), (a)(8). A person commits the offense of

“continuous trafficking of persons” if, during a period that is thirty or more days in

duration, the person engages two or more times in conduct that constitutes an offense

under section 20A.02 against one or more victims. Id. § 20A.03(a). That offense is

a first-degree felony “punishable by imprisonment in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 25

years.” Id. § 20A.03(e). “Traffic” means “to transport, entice, recruit, harbor,

provide, or otherwise obtain another person by any means.” Id. § 20A.01(4). “Child”

means “a person younger than 18 years of age.” Id. § 20A.01(1). A person commits

the offense of Compelling Prostitution if the person knowingly causes by any means

a child younger than eighteen years to commit prostitution, regardless of whether

the actor knows the age of the child at the time of the offense. Id. § 43.05(a)(2). A

person commits the offense of Prostitution if the person knowingly offers or agrees

to receive a fee from another to engage in sexual conduct. See id. § 43.02(a).

29
Analysis

The jury heard Duchamp testify that based on his investigation that one of the

phones posting the sexually explicit ads prostituting Susan belonged to Simon, that

one of the three email accounts used to create the Skipthegames user accounts where

the ads were posted was linked to Simon, that the ads from all three user accounts

were posted from September 2, 2019 to October 22, 2019, and that Simon’s phone

was used in Susan’s sexual exploitation. The jury was presented with the ads, posted

on Skipthegames, that contain pornographic images of Susan. The jury heard

Duchamp testify that police discovered pornographic images of Susan on Simon’s

phone when the phone was searched, and Duchamp linked those pornographic

images to the images of Susan which were used in the Skipthegames ads. The jury

heard Duchamp’s testimony that, based on his investigation and his training and

experience, he believed that Susan was “exploited and advertised on the internet”

and that this was something that Simon and Susan were doing together. Duchamp

explained to the jury that it was his opinion based on the evidence that for a period

of time Susan and Simon shared a phone when Susan lost her phone, that Susan and

Simon were both posting the ads, that it is likely they were both texting with

“buyers,” and that Simon benefitted from Susan engaging in prostitution by

receiving food, a place to stay, cigarettes and cigars, narcotics and all of the things

purchased with the proceeds of Susan’s prostitution. The jury also heard Duchamp

30
testify that from his investigation, he believed that this was a situation where Susan

was willing to participate and work together with Simon, her trafficker, to engage in

prostitution. The jury could have believed Susan’s initial testimony that the text

messages extracted from Simon’s phone were an accurate representation of what

took place. The jury was presented with copies of the text messages extracted from

Simon’s phone that contained text messages between the owner of the phone and

“buyers” negotiating the purchase of sexual services from Susan and texting

pornographic images of Susan to buyers that are either like or the same as the images

of Susan that are in the Skipthegames ads. The jury heard the SANE testify that her

interview and examination of Susan raised several “red flags” suggesting that Susan

had been trafficked: that Simon was older than Susan; that Susan mentioned the

motel room; that Susan had many dealings with law enforcement; that law

enforcement knew Susan as a different name; the story about the events at the park

leading up to Susan’s arrest that did not make sense and seemed like there was

“something more to it[;]” and that Susan was guarded when answering the SANE’s

questions and would pause for long periods and then give vague answers. The jury

heard the SANE’s testimony and Duchamp’s testimony that protecting the

perpetrator is common for victims of trafficking. The jury heard Susan’s testimony

that she did not want to be at the trial, that she still cared for Simon, that it was

“complicated” for her to be at the trial with him, and the jury could have reasonably

31
inferred that Susan was denying Simon’s involvement in her prostitution in order to

protect him. The jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence extracted

from Simon’s phone and Duchamp’s testimony that Simon helped post the ads

involving Susan and negotiated with “buyers” who responded to the ads. The jury

heard evidence that Simon received a benefit from participating in a venture that

involved trafficking Susan, a child younger than 18 years of age, including Susan’s

testimony that she would buy food and drugs for Simon with the money she earned

from prostitution, and that she bought him a gun with the money. The jury also could

have considered Susan’s testimony that Simon did not have a job and that his money

came from Susan, and the jury could have reasonably inferred that Simon, at a

minimum encouraged, aided in, and profited from her prostitution. As for Simon’s

arguments on appeal that Duchamp’s and the SANE’s testimony was speculative or

conclusory, he did not make that objection at trial, so he cannot complain on that

basis waived those arguments on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

Having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we

conclude that a rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Simon, two or more times in more than a thirty-day period (from on or about

September 12, 2019, through on or about October 22, 2019, either (1) knowingly

trafficked Susan, a child younger than 18 years of age, and by any means caused

Susan to engage in, or become the victim of Compelling Prostitution; or (2)

32
knowingly received a benefit from participating in a venture that involved trafficking

Susan, a child younger than 18 years of age, and by any means caused Susan to

engage in, or become the victim of Compelling Prostitution. See Jackson, 443 U.S.

at 319; Lucio, 351 S.W.3d at 894; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. The jury was able to

assess the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses who testified at trial, and we

presume that the jury resolved all conflicts in the testimony, weighed the evidence,

and drew reasonable inferences from the evidence in a manner that supports the

verdict. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 n.13; Clayton,

235 S.W.3d at 778. “This was not a determination so outrageous that no rational trier

of fact could agree.” Wirth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 694, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

We overrule Appellant’s issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on January 23, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 26, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

33