1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 08- 132- CR
DOU GL AS W AY NE S W AR I NGE N AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT O F YO UN G CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t w o i ss ues , ap pel l antD ougl asW ayn e Sw ar i nge n a ss ert s t hatt he evi d e n c e i s l e g a l l y a n d f a c t u a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o rt h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o rt he
o ffe n s e o f te rro ri s ti c th re a t. W e a ffir m .2 ... A ccor di ng t o S w ar i ngen , hi s “hom i ci dal t hr eat s w er e m er el y t he beer

ta l k i n g .” 2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry Thi s i s t he ca seofbe ert al ki ng. 2The basi c backgr oun d f act s oft hi s case ar e not i n di sp ut e: on Jul y 14, 200 7, Sw ar i nge n f el l of fhi s bi cyc l e b ec aus e h e
w as dr unk, and he pr oceeded t o geti nt o an ar gum entw i th th e pol i ce. S w ar i ngen w as bel l i ger ent because he har bor ed a gr udg e agai nstt he G r aham Pol i ce D epart m entf ori t s al l eged i nsensi t i vi t y t o hi s w i f e’ s speci al needs. Beca us e ofhi s i nt oxi ca t ed st at e a nd ho st i l e a tt i t ude , Sw ar i nge n f ound hi m sel f , notf orthe f i r stt i m e, i n t he back ofa G r aham Pol i ce D epart m entpol i ce cr ui sero n hi s w ay t o t he Y oun g C oun t y Just i ce C ent er . A ccor di ng t o O f f i cer W i l l i am A l l r ed, t he ar r es t i ng off i ce r , Sw ar i nge n sa i d “h e w asgoi ng t o s hootan d k ill u sa ll w h e n h e g e t so u t o f ja il.” O f f ic e r A llr e d a ls o s a id t h a tS w a r in g e n s a id “[e ]ve ry o n e o f y o u [i .e., th e p o l i c e ] n e e d s t o b e sh o t. ” T h i s s e c o n d sta tem e n t, abo utne edi ng t o bes hot , w asr ec or ded by equ i pm enti n t he pol i ceca rand
m em or i al i z ed i n t he of f i ce r ’ s pol i ce r epo rt . The f i r st st at em ent
— t he oneab out Sw ar i nge n s hoot i ng t he pol i ce — w asnot . I t w as Sw ar i nge n’ s unr ec or ded an d
unm em or i al i z ed st at em entt hatl ed t o hi s i ndi ct m ent , t r i al , an d c onvi ct i on. Th e Stat e cal l ed t hr ee w i t nesses att r i al

— Ji m m y D a rr el l O dom , O f f i cer Tom m y Shaw ver , and O f f i ce r A l l r ed. O dom t es t i f i ed t haton J ul y 14, 2007 , he3

w a sle a v in g t h e M i n u t e M a rtin G r a h a m w h e n h e s a w S w a r in g e n f a ll o f fh is bi ke. H e te sti f i ed t hathe suspect ed t hatSw ar i ngen w as dr unk and t hat S w ar i ngen “r eal l y bum ped hi s head good” f r om t he f al l because h e saw Sw ar i nge n bl ee di ng f r om hi s hea d. Sw ar i nge n t hen got“ m out hy”w i t h a
w om an w ho ca m e t o Sw ar i nge n’ s as si st anc e, s o O dom f l agg ed dow n a ne ar by
o ffi c e r ( O ffi c e r A l l red ), w h o tr i e d to h e l p S w a ri n g e n . A l l the o ffi c e r’ s e fforts
se e m e d t o d o w a sf u rt h e ra n g e rSwa r i n g e n . W h e n t h e o f f i c e rt r i e d t o p ut S w a r in g in ’s h a n d sb e h in d h isb a c k , S w a r in g in re s is t e d , a n d t h e o f f ic e rb e n th im
overt he hoo d ofa near by t r uck. N ext , a br i e f s tr u g g l e occur r ed bet w een Sw ar i nge n a nd Of f i ce rA l l r ed and an ot herof f i ce r( O f f i ce rShaw ver ) , w i t h t he
o ffi c e rs e v e n tu a l l ysu b d u i n g S w a ri n g e n an d p l a c i n g h i m u n d e r arr e st. O f f i ce rShaw vert es t i f i ed t hather es ponde d t o O f f i ce rA l l r ed’ s r equ es tf or as si st anc e. W hen hear r i ved att he sc ene , O f f i ce rA l l r ed w asi n t he pr oce ssof
a rr e sti n g S w a ri n g e n , a n d h e o b se rve d th a t O ffi c e r A l l red h a d S w a ri n g e n ’s l e ft
ar m behi nd hi m an d h a d h i m b e ntovert he hoo d ofa t r uck. O f f i cerSh aw ver th e n as sisted O ffi c e r A l l red i n h a n d c u ffi n g S w a ri n g e n . S w a ri n g e n w a s b o th “bel l i ger ent ” and “very i nto x i c a t ed. ” O n cr oss exam i nat i on, O f f i cerSh aw ver sai d t hatw hi l e he hear d S w ar i ngen cur si ng ath i m and A l l r ed, he di d not hear S w a r in g e n m a k e a n yt h r e a t s a g a in s tt h e o f f ic e r s . O f f ic e rS h a w v e ra ls o s a id t hathe kn ew thatSw ar i nge n’ s w i f e, A m el i a, ha d m ent alpr obl em s, t hats he4

w as oft en ar r est ed and/ orhospi t al i zed as a r esul toft hose pr obl em s, and t hat he w as aw ar e o fthe t em pest uou s r el at i onshi p t hatex i st ed bet w een S w ar i ngen and A m el i a. O f f i cerA l l r ed t est i f i ed t hat he w as dr i vi ng t ow ar ds t he M i nute M artw hen he sa w Sw ar i nge n f al l of fhi s bi ke . He ca m e t o Sw ar i nge n’ s as si st anc e, but Sw ar i nge n w asbot h “ com bat i ve ” and “ i nt oxi ca t ed, ” so heca l l ed f orba ck up. O ffice r A l l re d c o u l d s m e l l a lc o h o l o n S w a ri n g e n ’sb re a th , a n d h i se y e sw e re bl oods hot . W hen Sw ar i nge n r ef us ed to ge tup, t he of f i ce rgr abb ed hi s han d and pul l ed hi m to hi s f eet . S w ar i ngen b egan “t w i st i ng, ” and t he of f i cerpushed hi m agai nstt he hoo d ofa n e a r by vehi cl e. H e and O f f i cerSh aw vert hen
ar r es t ed Sw ar i nge n f orpubl i c i nt oxi ca t i on. O f f i ce rA l l r ed t es t i f i ed abo ut S w a ri n g e n ’s fi rst ve rba l thre a t: A . I p la c e d h im in t h e p a t r o l c a r , a n d I w e n ta r o u n d a n d b a s ic a lly sa t i n m y car . Th at ’ s w hen I sat i n m y car , f i xi ng t o t ake hi m to t h e ja il. Q . O ka y. Di d hem ak e a t hr ea tt o yo u? A . Y e s , sir. Q . W hatdi d hes ay? A . H e sa i d he w as goi ng t o sh oot and ki l l us al l w hen hege t s out o fja il. Q . A n d d i d y o u the n - - w h a t did y o u d o n e x t?5

A . I t ur ned m y - -I h ad m y cam er a - -m y dash cam er a on, and t hen I t ur ned i tar oun d t o f ace hi m . But I r em em ber ed t hatt hi s i s a new car , j ustg oti t . I th as a dash
- -i th as a cam er a p oi nt i ng t o t he back and ha d a n i nt er nalm i c. So I pus hed i tan d i tf ac ed t he bac k, an d t hen I t ur ned t he aud i o f ort he bac k o n.

. . . . A . . . . H e s ai d t hathe w asgoi ng t o s hootan d k i l l usw hen hegot o u to fja il.

. . . . A . The t hr eathappen ed pr i ort o t he audi o bei ng on. I thappen ed w h e n I fi rs t s a t i n th e v e h i c l e w h i l e I w a s fi x i n g to g o to t h e ja il. That ’ s w hat I m ea nt i n t he r epo rt . But w hen I f i r st sat i n t he veh i cl e, t hat ’ s w hen hes ai d i t . That ’ s w hy I adj us t ed al l m y vi deo s and cam er as i n case he sai d i tagai n ori n case he d i d anythi ng el se, to g e t i t a l l o n v i d e o ta p e w h i l e g o i n g to th e j a i l . A n d th a t’sw h a t -- t he t hr ea tofhi m k i l l i ng us- -s hoot i ng t o k i l l usw hen hege t s out w aspr i ort o t he aud i o be i ng t ur ned on. The onehe
- -t he t i m e h e s a id w h ile e n r o u t e , I g u e s s w h a t y o u ’r e s a y in g , a lm o s tt o t h e ja il, t hat ’ s nott he t hr ea tI ’ m t al ki ng a bout . The t hr ea ti s pr i ort o.

. . . . A . I r em em berw hatw ass ai d pr i or t o t he ca m er as bei ng t ur ned on h im a n d t h e a u d io t u r n e d o n . H e t h r e a t e n e d m e w h e n I f ir s ts a tin th e v e h i c l e , a n d th e n th a t’sw h a t c a u s e d m e to tu rn th e v e h i c l e -- o r th e c a m e ra sto o n th e b a c kw i th th e a u d i o a n d e v e ry th i n g . Q . W e l l , w h yd i d n ’ty o u p u t t h a t i n the rep o rt ? A . I have no i dea. Q . I ft hat ’ s t he subj ectofyourcom pl ai nt , shoul dn’ t i t have been p u t i n y o u r r e p o rt ? A . Y e s , sir.6

W hi l e e n r out e t o t he j ai l , Sw ar i nge n t ol d the of f i ce rt hat“ [ e] very on e o fyou nee dst o bes hot , ” and t hi s w aspl aye d f ort he j ury. O n c r os s exa m i na t i on, O f f i cerA l l r ed agr eed t hatther e w as no r ecor di ng of S w ar i ngen sayi ng he w as goi ng t o shoot t he of f i cer s aft erhe gotoutofj ai l , t hatO f f i ce r S haw verw as physi cal l y pr esentatt he scene w hen ( accor di ng t o O f f i cerA l l r ed) Sw ar i ngen s a i d th a t h e w a sg o i n g to k i l l th e o f f ic e rs , th a t h e n e v e r p u t i n h i sre p o rt S w ar i ngen ’ s st at em entabout ki l l i ng t he of f i cer s, and t hathi s f ai l ur e t o put t hat
s ta te m e n t i n th e re p o rt w a sa n e rro r. O n A pr i l 23, 2008 , Sw ar i nge n w asf ound gui l t y oft he of f ens e o f t e r r o r is t ic t h r e a tre g a r d in g t h e s t a t e m e n tt h a t“ h e w a sg o in g t o s h o o ta n d k ill
usa l l a ft e rh e g e t so uto fj a i l ” a nd s e nt e nc e d t o 180 d a ysi n j a i l a nd a $1, 000 f i ne. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . Legaland Fact ualSu ff i ci ency A . Standar d ofRev i ew I n r evi ew i ng t he l ega l su f f i ci enc y oft he evi den cet o s upporta con vi ct i on,
w e vi ew al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on i n or der t o det er m i ne w het herany r at i onal t r i er o f factcoul d have f oun d t he essent i al
e l e m e n tso f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Ja cks o nv. V i r ginia , 443 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate , 235 S. W . 3d 7 7 2 , 7 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).7

T h i s s tan d a rd g i v e s fu l l p l a yto t h e r e s p o n sibi l i ty o f t h e tr i e r of fac t t o r esol ve confl i ct s i n t he t esti m ony, t o w ei gh t he evi dence, and t o dr aw re a s o n a b l e in fe re n c e sf ro m b a s i c f a c tst o u l ti m a te fa c ts . Jacks on , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 235 S . W . 3d at778. The t r i eroff ac ti s t he
s o l e j u d g e o f th e w e i g h t a n d c re d i b i l i tyo f th e e v i d e n c e . S eeT e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .0 4(V e rn o n 1 9 7 9 ); Brownv. S tate , 270 S. W . 3d 564, 568 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h u s , w h e n p e rfo rm i n g a le g a l s u fficie n c yre v i e w , w e m a yn o t r e -ev a l u a te th e w e i g h t an d cre d i b i l i ty o f t h e ev i d e n c e a n d su b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e fa c tfin d e r. D e wb erryv. S tate , 4 S. W . 3d 735, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U . S . 1 1 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . I n s t e a d , we “d et er m i ne w het hert he nec es sa ry i nf er enc esar e r ea so nab l e base d upo n t he
com bi ned an d c um ul at i ve f or ceofal l t he evi de nc e w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ght
m ostfavor abl e to t he ver di ct . ” Ho op er v. S tate , 214 S. W . 3d 9, 16–1 7 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 2007 ) . W e m us tpr es um e t hatt he f ac t f i nde rr es ol ved an y con f l i ct i ng i nf er enc es i n f avo roft he pr os ec ut i on a nd de f ert o t hatr es ol ut i on. Jacks on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 2 6 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 3 ; Cl ayton , 235 S. W . 3d a t778. W h e n r e v ie w i n g the fac tu a l su ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta co nvi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rt y. Neal v. State, 2 5 6 S .W .3 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), cert. denied, 129 S . C t. 1 0 3 7 (2 0 0 9 ); Wa tso nv. S tate , 204 S. W . 3d 404 , 414 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp.8

200 6) . W e t hen as k w het hert he evi den ces upport i ng t he con vi ct i on, al t hough le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is n e v e rt h e le s ss o w e a kt h a tt h e f a c t f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is
c le a r ly w r o n g a n d m a n if e s t lyu n ju s to rw h e t h e rc o n f lic t in g e v id e n c e s o g r e a t ly
o u tw e i g h sth e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rti n g th e c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e fa c tfin d e r’s d e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n if e s tl yu n j u s t. L an c o nv. S tate , 253 S. W . 3d 699, 704 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); W a tso n , 20 4 S . W . 3d at41 4– 15 , 41 7. To r ever se unde rt he se con d gr ound, w e m us tdet er m i ne, w i t h som e obj ec t i ve bas i s i n t he
r ec or d, t hat t he gr ea t w ei ght and pr epo nde r anc e of al l t he evi den ce , t ho ugh l e g a l l ys u fficie n t, c o n tra d i c tsth e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s fa c tu a l l yi n su ffi c i e n t t o su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y suf f i ci entevi den ce , i ti s not e n o u g h tha t th is c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o tc o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ryo rb e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin t h e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m a y n o t s i m p l y s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n tf ort he fa c tfin d e r’s . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2 3 S .W .3 d 1 , 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Ca in
v. S tate , 9 5 8 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n l e s sth e re c o rd
c l e a rl yre v e a l sth a t a d i ffe re n t re s u l t i sa p p ro p ri a te , w e m u s t d e fe r to th e j u ry ’s det er m i nat i on of t he w ei ght t o be gi ven con t r adi ct or y t est i m oni al evi dence9

b e c a u se res o l u ti o n o f t h e co n fl i c t “o ften tu rn s o n an ev a l u a ti o n o f cred i b i l i ty and dem eanor , and t hose j ur or s w er e i n at t endan ce w hen t h e test i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t8 . T h u s , u n le s sw e c o n c l u d e t h a titis
nec es sa ry t o c or r ec tm an i f es ti nj us t i ce , w e m us tgi ve duede f er enc e t o t he f ac t f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i ons , “ part i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i onsco nce r ni ng t he
w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . a t 9 . O u r d e fe re n c e i n th i sre g a rd
s a fe g u a rd sth e d e fe n d a n t’sri g h t to a tri a l b yj u ry . Lancon, 253 S. W . 3d a t704. A n opi ni on a ddr es si ng f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y m us ti ncl udea di sc us si on oft he
m os t i m port ant and r el eva nt evi den cet hats upport s t he app el l ant ’ s com pl ai nt o n a p p e a l . Si

m s v. S tate , 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). B. Ter r or i st i c Th r eat Th e el em ent s oft hi s of f ense ar e f oun d i n s e c ti on 2 2. 07 oft he T exas Penal C ode, w hi ch i n partr eads, ( a) A pe r so n c om m i t s an of f ens e i fhet hr ea t enst o c om m i tan y of f ens e i nvol vi ng v i ol enc e t o any per so n or pr ope rt y w i t h i nt entt o:

. . . . ( 2) pl ac e a ny p er so n i n f ea rofi m m i nen ts er i ousbodi l y i nj ury;

. . . . (c ) A n o ffe n s e u n d e r S u b s e c ti o n (a )(2 ) i sa C l a s sBm i s d e m e a n o r, exceptt hatt he of f ense i s a Cl ass Am i sdem eanori ft he of f ense:

. . . .10 (2 ) i s c o m m i tted ag a i n st a p u b l i c se rva n t. T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 2 .0 7 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). I n D u es v. S tate , ourTexa s C ourtofCr i m i nalA ppe al s st at ed: Ther ef or e, i n or dert o c om m i tt hi s of f ens e [ i . e. t er r or i st i c t hr ea t ] t he accused m usthave t he speci f i c i nt entt o pl ace any perso n i n f ear ofi m m i nen ts er i ous bodi l y i nj ury. . . . I nt ent ca n bei nf er r ed f r om t he ac t s, w or ds , an d c onduc toft he ac cus ed. How eve r , t he a c c u s e d ’s in t e n tc a n n o tb e d e t e r m in e d m e r e lyf r o m w h a tt h e v ic t im t hough t at t he t i m e of t he of f ens e. I nde ed, f ort hi s of f ens e t o be com pl et ed i ti s notnecessary t hatt he vi cti m oranyon e el se w as ac t ua l l y pl ac ed i n f ea rofi m m i nen ts er i ousbodi l y i nj ury. A dd i t i on a l l y, i ti si m m a t e r i a l t o t heo f f e ns e w he t he rt hea c cused had t he capabi l i t y ort he i nt ent i on t o car ry out hi s t hr eat . A l l t hat isn e c e s s a ryt o c o m p le t e t h e o f f e n s e ist h a tt h e a c c u s e d b yh is t hr ea ts oughtasa des i r ed r ea ct i on t o pl ac e a pe r so n i n f earof i m m i nen ts er i ousbodi l y i nj ury. 6 3 4S .W .2 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 5

– 0 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) (i n te rn a l c i ta ti o n so m i tte d ). C . A n a ly s is S w a r in g e n s t ip u la t e st h a tt h e s t a t e m e n t , “ h e w a sg o in g t o s h o o ta n d k ill us al l aft erhe get s out ofj ai l , ” i s ( 1) a t hr eatt o com m i tan of f ense, ( 2) w hi ch i n v o l v e s v i o l e n c e , a n d ( 3 ) w a s m a d e to a p u b l i c se rva n t; tha t t h e thre a t t o

“ s h o o ta n d k ill u sa ll”o b v io u s lyc o n t a in e d a t h r e a tin v o lv in g s e r io u sb o d ily i n j u ry; an d tha t t h e j u ry c o u l d co n c l u d e tha t t h e thre a t w a s i m m i n e n t. H i s com pl ai ntw i t h r egar d t o l egal suf f i ci ency i s t hat t he st i pul at ed t hr eat
w a sd e liv e r e d in a d r u n k e n s t u p o ra n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , S w a r in g e n w a sin c a p a b le
o f i n ten ti o n a l l yo r kn o w i n g l ym a k i n g the thre a t. A s h e p h ras e s i t,11

w hati ft he a ctori s so i n hi s cup s t hathei s i nca pab l e o f f or m ul at i ng a ny i nt entt o ge ta[ n] ac t i on orr ea ct i on? Then t he i nt entel em enti s r ender ed a nul l i t y, and no co nv i c ti on w i l l l i e. Such, ap pel l at e c ounse l w oul d s ugge st , i s t he ca sehe r e, an d a c c o rd i n g l y[S w a ri n g e n ’s ] c o n v i c ti o n o u g h t to b e o v e rtu rn e d .” T h i s a rg u m e n t i s a n o n -s ta rte r. It i s a x i o m a tic t h a t“ [v ]o l u n ta ry i nt oxi ca t i on do es not con st i t ut e a def ens e t o t he com m i ss i on of a cr i m e. ” Tex. Penal C ode A nn. § 8 . 04 ( a) ( V er non 20 03 ) . Li kew i se, t hi s dog has att em pt ed to h u n t i n o n e o f o u r s i s te r c o u rts a n d fa i l e d to d o s o . K i ngsb ury v. S tate , 14 S. W . 3d 405 , 407 –09 ( Tex. A pp. — W ac o 2000, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hats ec t i on 8. 04 w as nota def ense to t er r or i st i c t hr eatand t hatdef endan t ’ s act s, w or ds, and co nduc t
— pour i ng gas ol i ne i nt o a bug sp r aye r , ge tt i ng a pr opa ne bott l e, an d t el l i ng hi s w i f e t hathew asgoi ng t o “ bur n [ her ] as s up”an d t o “ bur n t hi s M . F. hous e w i t h [ her ] i n i t , ” i n a ddi t i on t o a tt em pt i ng t o s ethe ran d t he hous e o n f i r e, suf f i ci ent l y dem onst r at ed i nt ent ) . The r equi si t e i nt ent her e can be i nf er r ed fro m S w a ri n g e n ’s a c ts , w o rd s , a n d c o n d u c t. S e ePo tee t v. S tate , 957 S. W . 2d 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.); c f. Jo n es v. S tate , N o. 10- 07- 00365
- CR, 2008 W L3115 117, a t*2–3 ( Te x. App . — W a c o Aug. 6, 200 8, no p et . ) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng e vi den ceof t er r or i st i c t hr ea tl ega l l y s uf f i ci entw i t h r ega r d t o i nt entbutf ac t ual l y i ns uf f i ci ent
w hen defendantexpl ai ned t hathe t ol d c o m pl ai nant, w ho had j ustl ost12

r ee l ec t i on, t hatby “d ea d, ” he m ea nt“ pol i t i ca l l y de ad”be ca us e o ft he “skel et ons” i n hercl oset ) . W e over r ul e Sw ar i ngen ’ s f i r sti ssue. I n hi s f ac t uals uf f i ci enc y c om pl ai nt , Sw ar i nge n a r gue s t hatbe ca us e n o onebutO f f i ce rA l l r ed hea r d t he i ni t i alt hr ea t , and beca us e O f f i ce rA l l r ed di d not puti ti n hi s pol i cer epo rt , t hi s sh oul d gi ve t he C ourtt he gr avestconcer ns about t he val i di t y oft hi s part i cul ar ver di ct , an d t hatco nce r n s houl d s egu e i nt o t hi s C ourt ’ s ove r ar chi ng re s p o n s i b i l i tyu n d e r Johnson . . . to re v e rs e i f th e re c o rd “d e m o n strate s th a t t h e p roo f of g u i l t i s s o o b v io u s lyw e a kas to unde r m i ne con f i den cei n t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on. ” [ Sw ar i nge n] bel i eve s t he l ac k ofco r r obor at i on bybot h t he ot herw i t nes se s and O f f i ce rA l l r ed’ s pol i cer epo rtca n onl y po i nt t o aco ncl us i on t hatt he evi dence w as f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci entt o sust ai n [ S w ar i n g e n ’ s] con vi ct i on. Sw ar i nge n f ai l s t o m ent i on t hatO f f i ce rA l l r ed t es t i f i ed t hathe w asi ns i de hi s pol i ce ca r w hen t he i ni t i al t hr ea t w as m ade , pr es um abl y out si de t he hea r i ng oft he t w o ot herw i t nesses. Th e o f f i ceral so cl ear l y and un equi vocal l y t est i f i ed t hatt he t hr ea tw asm ade bu ttha ti tw asom i tt ed f r om hi s r epo rt . The
r em ai nd er oft he evi den ces how ed Sw ar i nge n’ s i nt oxi ca t ed and co m bat i ve n a tu re an d O ffi c e r A l l red ’s tes ti m o n ytha t t h e i n i ti a l thre a t pro m p ted h i m to3 ... W e h a v e r evi ew ed t he r ecor di ng of S w ar i ngen ’ s behavi ori n O f f i cer

A l l r ed’ s vehi cl e, w hi ch t he j ur y al so r evi ew ed. The v i deo show s Sw ar i ngen cur si ng, t hr ow i ng hi s body a g a i n st t he part i t i on betw een t he f r ont and back se a ts, an d i n su l ti n g O ffi c e r A l l red an d p o l i c e i n g e n e ral . A t on e p o i n t, Sw ar i nge n s hout s, “ Eve ry m ot her
- f [ *] ck i ng on e o fyou ne edst o bes hoton s i g h t, d e a d a sa f[* ]c k i n g d o o rn a i l .” 13 act i vat e t he aud i o i n hi s vehi cl e. 3G i v i n g d u e d e fe re n c e to th e j u ry ’s det er m i nat i on of O f f i cerA l l r ed’ s cr edi bi l i t y and vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n a neut r al l i ght, w e cannot say t hatt he e v i d e n ce support i ng t he conv i ct i on i s so w eak t hatt he j ur y’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ear l y w r ong and m ani f est l y unj ustort hat confl i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he evi den ces upport i ng t he
c o n v i c ti o n th a t th e j u ry ’sd e te rm i n a ti o n i sm a n i fe s tl yu n j u s t. T h e re fo re , w e c o n c l u d e th a t th e e v i d e n c e i sf a c t u a l l ys u fficie n t to s u p p o rt S w a ri n g e n ’s convi ct i on, and w e over r ul e Sw ar i ngen ’ s second i ssue. I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d S w a ri n g e n ’stw o i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e t r ia l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.
B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: G A RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. W A LKER, J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 5, 2009