In Baker v. State, 781 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1989, pet. ref'd), the complainant testified that she had fallen and cut her head while visiting her friend. 781 S.W.2d at 688. Her friend's uncle, defendant Baker, picked up the complainant and carried her to the bathroom to wash the blood from her head. Id. The complainant explained that Baker placed one of his arms under her neck and the other arm underneath her thighs. Id. at 688-89. She also described the incident as one in which "one hand was on her shoulder and the other hand was in her crotch." Id. at 689. Baker denied the allegation that he touched her genital area and testified that, if he had done so, inadvertently, he did so without the requisite intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Id. The Fort Worth court, noting that intent can be inferred, concluded that there were no facts from which the intent to engage in sexual contact could be inferred. Id. There was no evidence of a smile, a laugh, or a remark that would show an intent to arouse or gratify his sexual desire. Id. The court pointed out that the complainant even testified that she was uncertain if Baker put his hand on her crotch purposefully or accidentally. Id. The complainant's friend also testified that she had seen the entire incident and that she never saw Baker touch the complainant's genital area. Id. at 690. The court went on to explain how the State's evidence of extraneous offenses failed to show the requisite intent and ultimately concluded that no rational jury could have found the element of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.