Visual observation of the exposed genitals is not an element of the offense of indecent exposure. Appellant was observed masturbating in a Mexican restaurant. Although the reporting witness saw appellant’s fist and his hand movements, and observed semen on the floor, she did not actually see appellant’s penis. Appellant was found guilty of indecent exposure. On appeal, appellant argued that the conviction had to be reversed because the witness did not see his genitals. The appellate court affirmed. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence that exposure occurred in the presence of other persons.