### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00409- CV

In the Matte r of M.C.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-24 ,218 , HO NORAB LE WILLIAM D. KING, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N M.C. appeals fr om a judg ment of a trial co u rtthat he had e ng ag ed in delinquent conduct by

knowing ly

or intentionally making abusive or hara ssing statements in a 911 telephone call to a “ public safe ty

answe ringpoint” employ ee in violation of the Texas Pena l Code. See T e x. Pen. Code Ann. § 42.061 (West 2003). In two points of error , M.C. challeng es the leg al and f actua l
su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e . We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
F AC TS On Fe bruar

y 11, 2004, afte r wa lking around in a classroom at school, M.C. picked up the classr oom telephone r ece iver a nd said, “I ’m g o i n g to call 911.” The teac her a nd teac her’ s assistant both testified that M.C. then dialed three numbers, made a stateme nt that his teache r wa s killing or ha

rming him, and hungup and left. The school’s a ssociate pr incipal testified that he
rec eived a

call fr om police dispatch notifying him of the 911 call and the number of the telephone2

from which the call was made. He deter mined that the phone number was that of the phone in the classroom wher e M.C. made the ca ll. He then notified the sc hool resourc e off icer , who testified that he c on fi rm e d w ith th e dis patc he r t hat th e y re c e ive d a

91 1 c a ll. At

the he ari ng , in

re sp on se to questioning f

rom M.C.’s attorney , the offic er c onfirmed that he g ot the phone number from which the 911 ca ll originated from the dispatcher , who g ot it from the “911 oper ator.”

M. C. a pp e a ls o n th e g ro un d that the e vid e nc e is le g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o support the conc lusion that the phone ca ll was made to a “public sa fety answe ringpoint” employ ee within the statute.
AN AL YSI S

Ev ide nc e is l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt i f, in v ie w o f t

he e vid e nc e in a l ig ht m os t f avo ra ble to the finding , any

rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e lements of the of fense proven be y ond a
rea sonable doubt. In re M .S. , 940 S.W .2d 789, 791-92 (Te x . App.—Austin 1997, no writ). Evidence is factua lly

insufficient if, in view of the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht, it is so weak as to be clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust. In re J

.D.P. , 85 S.W.3 d 4 20 , 4 22 -2 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2002, no pet.). The revie wing court g ives due defe renc e to the fac t f inder’s deter

minations a

nd finds fac tual insufficienc y

only wher e nec essar

y to preve nt manifest injustice. Id. at 423. M. C. w a s f

ound to have vio late d Te xas Pe na l Co de se c tio n 4 2. 06 1, wh ic h p ro vid e s: (a ) In th is s e c tio n “ 9- 1- 1 s e rv ic e ” and “ pu bli c sa fe ty

ans we ri ngpo int ” or

“ PSA P” have the meaningassig ned by Section 772.001, Hea lth and Safety Code. (b) A per son commits an offense if the per son makes a telephone c all to 9-1-1 whe n th e r e i s n o tane m e r g e n c y an d kn o w i n g l y o r

i n t e n t i o n a l l y:3 (1) rema ins silent; or (2) makes a

busive or har assingstatements to a PSAP employ ee.
Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 4 2 .061. A “public sa fety answe ringpoint” is a communications fa c ili ty that: ( A ) i s o p e r at e d

c o n t i nu o u s l y; (B ) is assi g ne d th e re sp on sib ili ty to r e c e ive 9- 1- 1 c a lls and , a s a pp ro pr iate , to dispatch eme rg ency

response service s directly or to tr ansfe r or r elay

emer g ency 9- 1- 1 c a lls to o the r p ub lic sa fe ty a g e nc ie s; (C) is the first point of rec eption by a public saf

ety ag ency of a 9- 1-1 ca ll; and (D ) se rv e s th e jur isd ic tio ns in wh ic h it is loc ate d o r o the r p art ic ipatin gjur isd ic tio ns . Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 772.001(13) (West 2003). M.C. contends that the evidence was fac tually and leg ally

insufficient to support the conclusion that M.C. place d a c al l to a person identifie d in the statute. Ba sed on the tea cher ’s testimony that M.C., in the classroom and in her prese nce, sa id, “I ’m g o i ngto call 911,” a nd the te a c he r’ s o bs e rv atio n th at “ he punc he d thre e butto ns ,” a ra tio na l tri er of fac t c ou ld f ind that M. C. made a 911 call. The school resour ce of fice r also testified that he g ot the telephone numbe r fr om which the c all orig inated fr om the dispatcher who g ot it from the “911 oper ator” and that the c all was
rec eived by

the communications fa cility that is “assig ned the responsibility to rec eive 9- 1-1 ca lls,” and, more specific ally , an employ ee of such fa cility
. Id. A rational trier of f act c ould find that the “911 oper ator” who receive d the call acc ording to the t estimony of t he off icer is an employ ee of

the fac ility that is “ assig ned the responsibility to rec eive 9- 1-1 ca lls.” Id. Thus, viewingthe evidenc e4

in a light favor able to the finding , a rational trier of fac t c ould f ind that the hara ssing phone call wa s
ma de to a “ pu bli c sa fe ty

ans we ri ngpo int ” e mpl oye e . T hu s, the e vid e nc e wa s le g a lly su ff ic ie nt. The e vidence was a lso not so weak as to be clea rly wron g. On the contr ary , based on the t estimony of t he officer , a fact finder could conclude that M.C.’s hara ssing 911 phone call wa s made to a “ public safe ty

answe ringpoin t ” employ ee. G iving due defe renc e to the fa ct finder ’s de te rm inatio n, we c a

nn ot s ay that th e e vid e nc e wa s f

a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt.
CO NC LU SION Be cause we c onclude that the evidenc e was leg ally and factually sufficie nt to support the trial cour

t’s fin d i n g t h at t h e ca ll was made to a “public saf

ety answe ringpoint” employ ee, w e
ov e rr ule M. C.’ s p oints o f e rr or and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 23, 2005