COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00416-CR

VENKATA SANIVARAPU APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2016-05585-A

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING1

----------

Appellant Venkata Sanivarapu filed a motion for rehearing of our original 

opinion that issued on March 15, 2018. We deny the motion, withdraw our 

opinion and judgment dated March 15, 2018, and substitute the following.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

I. Introduction

Sanivarapu appeals his conviction for assault-family violence. In four 

issues, Sanivarapu argues that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he 

caused injuries to his wife, that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he 

intended to harm her, that the evidence is insufficient to show the alleged manner 

and means as put forth in the State’s charging instrument, and that the State 

failed to prove venue. We will affirm.

II. Background

City of Denton Police Officer Roopak Nair testified that around 11:30 p.m. 

on December 29, 2015, he and another officer received a dispatch concerning a 

domestic disturbance occurring on the service road of Interstate 35 near West 

Oak Street in Denton. Specifically, Nair said that a 911 operator relayed to him 

that a male and female were seen fighting and that they had stopped their black 

SUV on the side of the roadway. According to Nair, City of Denton Police Officer 

Daniel Neighbors arrived at the scene just prior to his own arrival. Nair averred 

that when he arrived at the service road of Interstate 35 near West Oak, 

Neighbors had already located the stopped black SUV. Its hazard lights were 

blinking. Nair also said that as he arrived, Neighbors was already speaking with 

“an Indian male” and that “an Indian female” was standing near Neighbors’s

squad car. Per department policy, Nair turned on his body camera as he arrived.

Nair said that he immediately spoke with Neighbors, who briefed him on 

the situation, and that he then stayed with the male, later identified as 
3

Sanivarapu, while Neighbors then spoke with the female, later identified as 

Sanivarapu’s wife (“Wife”). Nair asked Sanivarapu what was going on. Initially, 

by Nair’s account, Sanivarapu said nothing, but then he told Nair that he and 

Wife were “just having a discussion.” Nair said that Neighbors shortly returned 

from speaking with Wife and detained Sanivarapu by placing handcuffs on him 

and seating him in the back of a squad car.

Nair then spoke with Wife. Nair described Wife as being “very hysterical” 

and said that her hysteria escalated when she saw Neighbors detaining 

Sanivarapu, so much so that Nair said he had to restrain her. At that time, Nair 

said that he observed dried and fresh blood on Wife’s nostrils, on the right side of 

her forehead, toward her hairline, and in her right ear. He also observed what 

appeared to be a cut along her temple together with redness and swelling around 

her eye area and her cheek.

Nair asked Wife about the injuries, and Wife replied with two different 

stories that Nair said made no sense to him. Wife claimed first that the bleeding 

was because of it being cold outside. Wife claimed second that the blood was 

because of her having given birth to her daughter several months prior. Nair said 

that he called medics to come to the scene but that Wife declined treatment.

Nair photographed Wife’s injuries as well as what appeared to be blood 

splatter near the passenger side doorframe of the SUV and the console. The 

State introduced and published these photographs to the jury. The State also 

introduced and played for the jury the video from Nair’s body camera. In the 
4

video, Neighbors can be heard explaining to Nair that Sanivarapu said that the 

reason the couple had stopped their SUV was because it was overheating but 

that Neighbors had established it was not. Sanivarapu can also be heard telling 

Nair that he and Wife were returning from a shopping outlet and on their way 

back to Irving, where the couple lived.

The video further shows Wife acting hysterically and explaining to Nair and 

Neighbors that her injuries were due to her having given birth to her daughter

several months earlier and because it was cold outside. She can also be heard 

saying that she and Sanivarapu were “only talking.” Wife can repeatedly be 

heard on the video saying that the officers cannot take her husband. Also in the 

video, Nair can be heard asking Wife why, if her bleeding was due to the cold, 

did she also have bruising on her face and forehead. Wife then changes her 

story about the injuries and appears to explain the injuries as being from the 

couple’s two children. But later in the video, Wife maintains that her injuries were 

from having given birth to her daughter and her inability to stand in the cold 

without bleeding.

Later in the video, Nair and Neighbors can be seen and heard talking with 

two construction workers, one of whom had made the 911 call. Although neither 

of the workers said that they saw Sanivarapu physically strike Wife, they both 

described what they saw as a disturbing argument wherein Sanivarapu angrily 

yelled at Wife, left her standing on the side of the roadway in the cold and dark, 

allowed her to walk down an exit ramp, and then returned to yell at her again.
5

Still later in the video, Nair can be seen and heard questioning Sanivarapu. 

Sanivarapu can be heard stating that the couple was having an argument, that 

he was driving, and that he had told Wife to “shut up.” Sanivarapu can also be 

heard stating that he “grabbed” Wife in an attempt to “shut her mouth up.” 

Sanivarapu had no explanation as to why Wife was bleeding, but he admitted on 

camera that Wife was not bleeding before their argument. He can also be heard 

saying that whatever had happened, it was not “intentional” and that he was 

more focused on driving than what may have happened when he attempted to 

silence Wife as he drove down the road. Later, Sanivarapu wrote in a statement, 

“I used my right hand to stop [Wife] with no intention to harm but to address the 

safety concern.”

On cross-examination, Nair stated that although he initially believed that an 

assault had been reported, he and Neighbors later learned that no assault had 

been reported and that the 911 caller had only reported an argument. On 

redirect, the State introduced photographs that Nair had taken of Sanivarapu at 

jail during booking. Two of the photographs show that Sanivarapu had some 

type of wound on his right wrist. Nair averred that Sanivarapu’s right hand would 

have been the hand closest to Wife as he drove down the interstate.

Brandon Russell, the 911 caller, also testified at trial. Russell said that he 

was setting up traffic control signs on Interstate 35 on the night of these events 

and that just prior to 11:30 p.m., he noticed Wife standing on the side of the 

interstate. Russell said that this struck him as unusual given how dangerous it 
6

would be to stand where she was standing at that time of night. He asked Wife if 

she needed help, to which Wife replied that she did not. By Russell’s account, a 

few minutes later a vehicle with its hazard lights on was stopped next to Wife. 

After a coworker told Russell that Wife should not be standing where she was, 

Russell went over to her and told her it was dangerous to be there. Wife’s 

response was to walk down the exit ramp to the service road. After Wife stood 

on the side of the service road for a bit, the same vehicle reappeared next to 

wife, but this time, Russell said that he could hear a man yelling at Wife. He 

described her as looking distraught.

From there, Russell called 911. In the audio of the call that the State 

played for the jury, Russell can be heard explaining to the 911 operator that Wife 

appeared to be in some sort of trouble and that the entire scene “didn’t look 

right.” Still in the 911 audio, Russell can further be heard describing how a black 

SUV came to a stop while Wife stood on the side of the interstate and then the 

SUV just drove away down the exit ramp. Russell continued to describe how he 

had told Wife it was not safe for her to stand where she was, how she walked 

down the exit ramp, and how moments later the SUV was again alongside Wife 

and a man was yelling at her from the SUV.

Russell averred that he later talked to the police when they arrived after he 

called 911. He also said that he never saw any physical altercation between the 

couple. He did state that he believed that Wife was outside the SUV against her 

will and that it seemed “like something was wrong.”
7

The State called Wife to testify. Wife averred that on the day of 

Sanivarapu’s arrest, the couple had gone to a casino and then to a shopping 

outlet in Gainesville to celebrate that they were closing on a new home. 

According to Wife, on the couple’s drive back she talked to her brother on the 

phone and became upset because her brother was unable to attend rituals 

pertaining to the couple’s new home and their infant daughter. Wife said that she 

was having this conversation as the couple drove through Denton. By Wife’s 

account, she exited the vehicle on the highway because Sanivarapu had lost his 

glasses while looking for a phone charger. She further said that because the exit 

from the highway was only fifty meters from where she stood, and because 

Sanivarapu was still having a problem finding his glasses, he exited the interstate 

by driving and she followed on foot. Wife averred that shortly after walking down 

the ramp, she went back into the vehicle to assist Sanivarapu in finding his 

glasses and that “during that point of time, probably [she] had cut [herself] . . . 

[on] an air freshener.” Wife said that she was unaware of any injuries at that time 

and that from there she continued her conversation with her brother. Wife also 

testified that she did not have any other injuries on that night, other than a 

possible cut on her head caused by the air freshener, and that the redness and 

swelling that the officers observed was due to either her acne or possibly 

remnants of her having previously suffered a bout of shingles.

According to Wife, she made up the story of the SUV overheating because 

she wanted to avoid any conversation with the police in hopes of getting home to 
8

her daughter as soon as possible. She also recalled telling the officers that her 

ear was bleeding because of the cold. As Wife explained it, “[t]hat’s [her] body[‘s] 

nature” and is a condition she has had her entire life. She also attributed the 

presence of blood in her nostrils to this same condition. Wife further recalled 

telling the officers that the redness and swelling on her face was because of her 

children playing rough with her, but she said that she said that because she was 

unaware of any redness and swelling and was trying to explain what the officers 

said they were seeing.

Wife agreed that she had written a letter days after Sanivarapu’s arrest 

describing how he had used his right hand to “calm [her] down” so that she would

not overreact to her brother telling her he would not be coming because 

Sanivarapu needed to focus on driving. While Wife agreed that Sanivarapu 

made “contact” with her face by use of his right hand in attempts to calm her 

down, she said that he never hit, pulled, or struck her that evening. Wife had no 

explanation for the presence of blood splatter on the passenger’s side doorframe.

Officer Neighbors testified that he received a dispatch just prior to 11:30 

p.m. on December 29 concerning a man and a woman fighting in the street. 

Neighbors said that he was the first to arrive at the scene and that he later 

learned that the 911 caller had not seen an actual physical altercation. By 

Neighbors’s account, when he arrived, Sanivarapu was seated in the SUV as it 

was parked on the side of the service road and Wife was standing outside the 

vehicle on the side of the service road. The two were arguing. As Neighbors 
9

approached the SUV, he asked what was going on between the couple. 

Neighbors averred that the couple told him that the car was overheating but that 

he looked at the temperature gauge and it was not.

Neighbors said that Sanivarapu acted nervous and that he observed blood 

on Sanivarapu’s knuckles. Neighbors described the blood as being embedded in 

the skin and typical of the blood marks that happen to a person’s hand when they 

punch someone. Neighbors asked Sanivarapu about the blood, and according to 

Neighbors, Sanivarapu insisted that it was not blood and then wiped the blood 

from his knuckles.

At the same time, Neighbors observed Wife lean into the SUV and noticed 

that Wife had blood in her ear and coming out of her nose. Neighbors said that 

she also “had quite a few [other] injuries.” Neighbors then asked Wife to step 

away from the SUV and to the front of his squad car, where he was able to see 

the injuries more clearly. When Neighbors asked her how she sustained the 

injuries, Wife said that she had a bleeding disorder and that she had recently 

given birth to her daughter. Notably, Neighbors said that Wife never said 

anything about Sanivarapu looking for his glasses as the reason for pulling to the 

side of the interstate. She also never mentioned that she suffered from acne or 

that she had scars and redness from having had shingles. Video from 

Neighbors’s body camera, which was published to the jury, confirms his account 

of what transpired once he arrived on the scene.
10

Neighbors averred that in his eight years of duty, he had responded to 

more than 1,000 domestic-violence situations. Based on his experience, and 

given what Neighbors described as typical behavior of a domestic-violence victim 

by Wife, he surmised that her injuries were caused by Sanivarapu, so Neighbors 

made the decision to arrest him.

Venkata Sridhar Bhuvanagiri (Sridhar) testified for the defense. Sridhar

said that he has known Sanivarapu since 2006, when the two worked together in 

India. Wife is Sridhar’s sister, and Sanivarapu met Wife through his friendship 

with Sridhar. Sridhar described Sanivarapu as “a very good person, a very good 

human being.” He also said that Sanivarapu is a caring husband who loves Wife 

very much. According to Sridhar, he has never seen the couple have a 

disagreement.

Sridhar said that he called Sanivarapu on the night of these events to tell 

him he would be unable to attend the rituals related to the house closing and his 

niece. Sridhar described Sanivarapu as calm and understanding. He next spoke 

with Wife, and he described her as “upset” and said that she began to yell at him 

for not being able to make it to the house closing party. Sridhar said that he 

could hear Sanivarapu telling wife to “shut up” and to “calm down.” Sridhar said 

that he never heard any sounds of a physical altercation. He further said that if 

Sanivarapu had physically abused Wife, she would have told Sridhar.

The jury found Sanivarapu guilty of assault-family violence, and after the 

punishment phase, the jury assessed punishment at one year in jail with a 
11

recommendation that the trial court suspend imposition of the sentence and 

place Sanivarapu on community supervision. The trial court suspended the 

imposition of the sentence and placed Sanivarapu on two years’ community 

supervision. This appeal followed.

III. Discussion

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his first, second, and fourth issues, Sanivarapu argues that the evidence 

is insufficient to demonstrate that he was the cause of Wife’s injuries, that the 

evidence is insufficient to show that he had the culpable mental state to commit 

the alleged assault, and that the evidence is insufficient to prove the manner and 

means of an assault as alleged in the information. We disagree.

1. Standard of Review

In our due-process review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to 

determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 

307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 599 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016). This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the 

trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to 

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. 

at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Jenkins, 493 S.W.3d at 599.
12

The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the 

evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (West 1979); Blea v. State, 

483 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Thus, when performing an 

evidentiary sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility 

of the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder. See 

Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Instead, we 

determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the 

cumulative force of the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

verdict. Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 

136 S. Ct. 198 (2015). We must presume that the factfinder resolved any 

conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. Id. at 

448–49; see Blea, 483 S.W.3d at 33.

To determine whether the State has met its burden under Jackson to prove 

a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we compare the elements of the 

crime as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge to the evidence 

adduced at trial. See Jenkins, 493 S.W.3d at 599; Crabtree v. State, 389 S.W.3d 

820, 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“The essential elements of the crime are 

determined by state law.”). Such a charge is one that accurately sets out the 

law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s 

burden of proof or restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately 

describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried. Jenkins, 493 

S.W.3d at 599. The law as authorized by the indictment means the statutory 
13

elements of the charged offense as modified by the factual details and legal 

theories contained in the charging instrument. See id.; see also Rabb v. State, 

434 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“When the State pleads a specific 

element of a penal offense that has statutory alternatives for that element, the 

sufficiency of the evidence will be measured by the element that was actually 

pleaded, and not any alternative statutory elements.”).

The standard of review is the same for direct and circumstantial evidence 

cases; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing 

guilt. Jenkins, 493 S.W.3d at 599.

2. Assault-Family Violence and Culpable Mental State

To establish that Sanivarapu committed the offense of assault on a family 

member, as alleged in the information, the State was required to prove that he 

intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to Wife, a member of his family or 

household, by pushing, pulling, or striking her with his hand. See Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). Assault by causing bodily injury is a 

“result-oriented” offense. Darkins v. State, 430 S.W.3d 559, 565 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d). Thus, the State must prove that the 

defendant caused the result—i.e., caused bodily injury to the complainant—with

the requisite culpable mental state. Id. A person acts intentionally, or with intent, 

with respect to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire 

to cause the result. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.03(a) (West 2011). A person acts 

knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is 
14

aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Id. § 6.03(b).

The Penal Code defines “bodily injury” as “physical pain, illness, or any 

impairment of physical condition.” Id. § 1.07(8) (West Supp. 2017).

Direct evidence of the requisite culpable mental state is not required. See 

Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Tottenham v. State, 285 

S.W.3d 19, 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d) (“[P]roof of a 

culpable mental state almost invariably depends on circumstantial evidence.”). A 

defendant’s culpable mental state can be inferred from his acts, words, and 

conduct. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. 

denied, 517 U.S. 1106 (1996); see Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2004) (“Intent may also be inferred from circumstantial evidence such 

as acts, words, and the conduct of the appellant.”). The requisite culpable 

mental state may also be inferred from the extent of injuries to the complainant, 

the method used to produce the injuries, and the relative size and strength of the 

parties. Herrera v. State, 367 S.W.3d 762, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2012, no pet.) (citing Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 487); see also Hart, 89 S.W.3d at 64 

(stating that intent and knowledge may be inferred from “any facts which tend to 

prove its existence, including the acts, words, and conduct of the accused, and 

the method of committing the crime and from the nature of wounds inflicted on 

the victims.”) (quoting Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1999).
15

3. The Evidence Supports the Jury’s Verdict

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and 

taking all reasonable inferences from that evidence, a rational factfinder could 

have found that Sanivarapu intentionally or knowingly caused the injuries that 

both Nair and Neighbors observed and that Nair photographed on Wife once they 

arrived at the scene. Indeed, Nair and Neighbors both testified that Wife had 

extensive injuries to her face, including a cut next to her temple and redness and 

swelling on her cheek. The officers also described how Wife had blood in her 

nostrils and in her ear in various states of freshness. Neighbors testified that 

Sanivarapu had blood on his knuckles when Neighbors first arrived, and 

Neighbors said that after claiming not to be able to explain why he had blood on 

his knuckles, Sanivarapu wiped the blood from his hand. The jury could have 

found that Sanivarapu’s attempts to clean the blood from his hand demonstrated 

a consciousness of guilt. See Johnson v. State, 583 S.W.2d 399, 409 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (reasoning that attempts to conceal evidence of a 

crime demonstrate a consciousness of guilt). And it is a reasonable inference 

from the evidence that the blood on Sanivarapu’s knuckles was blood from him 

having struck Wife with his hand. In fact, Neighbors testified that the state of the 

blood on Sanivarapu’s knuckles was consistent with him having struck another 

person.
16

Moreover, the officers were responding to a 911 dispatch that described a 

couple arguing on the interstate and that Wife was outside of the vehicle in 

dangerous proximity to traffic. Then later, after Wife walked down the exit ramp 

in the cold and dark, Sanivarapu drove up alongside her and again began to yell 

at her as she stood outside the couple’s SUV. Once the officers had arrived and 

were questioning Sanivarapu regarding Wife’s injuries, he claimed that he had 

used his hand in an attempt to “shut up” Wife, and Wife testified at trial that 

Sanivarapu had made contact with his hand to her mouth. A reasonable 

inference from this evidence, especially when considering the extensive injuries 

to Wife’s face, nose, and ear, is that Sanivarapu had done more than made mere 

contact with his hand to her mouth but instead had caused the injuries by 

striking, pushing, or pulling wife’s head and face with his hand.

Furthermore, when the officers arrived, both Sanivarapu and Wife 

fabricated a story that their SUV had overheated, which Neighbors confirmed 

was not true, and Wife testified at trial that they had made up the story in order to 

avoid having to talk to the police. The jury could have inferred a consciousness 

of guilt because of this fabricated story. See Cuong Quoc Ly v. State, 273 

S.W.3d 778, 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (reasoning 

that the making of false statements can be evidence of a consciousness of guilt).

The jury was also free to disbelieve Wife’s explanations that her injuries 

were due to her own body’s reaction to the cold, to having given birth to her 

daughter several months prior, to her children having been rough with her, and to 
17

her having hit her head on an air freshener as she looked for Sanivarapu’s 

glasses (an explanation that she never mentioned to either officer as the reason 

the couple had pulled over and did not proffer until after Sanivarapu was 

charged). Indeed, video from both Nair’s and Neighbors’s body cameras show 

that Wife stood for a lengthy amount of time out in the cold but that Wife’s ears 

and nose did not again begin to bleed more; and the jury saw photographs of the 

air freshener that Wife surmised might have caused her injuries, an air freshener 

that did not have blood on it and one the jury was free to believe had not caused 

the multiple injuries that Wife sustained. And the jury was free to disbelieve 

Wife’s testimony at trial that her face was red from acne and previously having 

had shingles, explanations that Wife again did not proffer to the officers when 

they questioned her at the scene specifically about the redness and swollenness 

of her face and cheek.

As to Sanivarapu’s culpable mental state, the jury could have inferred from 

his and Wife’s lack of plausible explanations for her injuries, their fabricating of a 

story about the SUV having overheated, the bizarre episode of Wife standing on 

the side of the interstate and then walking down the exit ramp in the cold and 

dark only to have Sanivarapu drive again beside her and yell at her, and the 

extent of Wife’s injuries as demonstrative that Sanivarapu intentionally or 

knowingly caused the injuries to Wife. See Montgomery v. State, 198 S.W.3d 67, 

87–88 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d) (taking into account the nature 
18

and extent of injuries in determining that sufficient evidence existed that 

defendant knowingly caused complainant’s injuries).

As to whether the State proved the manner and means that the State 

charged, specifically that Sanivarapu caused Wife’s injuries by “pushing or 

pulling or striking” Wife with his hand, the manner and means of injuries alleged 

in an assault case are “not an essential element of the offense and therefore 

[are] not included within the hypothetically correct jury charge,” and thus they are 

not challengeable under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review. Thomas v. State, 

303 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.); see also Karl v. State, 

No. 02-16-00001-CR, 2016 WL 5443116, at *5–8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 

29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Recently, we held 

that in an assaultive offense, the manner and means of causing a victim's injury 

are not essential elements of an offense that are required to be included in a 

hypothetically correct jury charge.”).

We conclude and hold that a rational factfinder could have found that 

Sanivarapu committed the offense of assault on a family member, as charged in 

the information, by having the conscious objective to, or by being aware that his 

conduct was reasonably certain to, cause injury to Wife. See Jenkins, 493 

S.W.3d at 599; Crabtree, 389 S.W.3d at 824. We overrule Sanivarapu’s first, 

second, and fourth issues.
19

B. Venue

In his third issue, Sanivarapu argues that the State failed to prove venue. 

Specifically, Sanivarapu argues that the State failed to prove that he assaulted

Wife in Denton County. At trial, Sanivarapu did not complain about venue until 

he moved for a directed verdict. Assuming without deciding that moving for a 

directed verdict on the grounds that venue has not been proven is enough to 

preserve this issue for appeal, the State proved venue by a preponderance of the 

evidence. See Thompson v. State, 244 S.W.3d 357, 362 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

2006, pet. dism’d) (holding that moving for directed verdict that venue has not 

been established preserves the issue for appeal).

Venue is proper in the county where the offense occurred. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 13.18 (West 2015). Because venue is not considered an 

element of an offense, it need only be proven by a preponderance of the 

evidence. See id. art. 13.17 (West 2015); Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Williams v. State, 356 S.W.3d 508, 518 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d). Proof of venue may be by direct or 

circumstantial evidence, and the factfinder may make reasonable inferences from 

the evidence. Couchman v. State, 3 S.W.3d 155, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

1999, pet. ref’d).

When reviewing venue, we view all of the evidence in the light most 

favorable to an affirmative venue finding and ask whether any rational factfinder

could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that venue was proved.
20

Williams, 356 S.W.3d at 518; Vanschoyck v. State, 189 S.W.3d 333, 336 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d.).

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s 

affirmative finding that Sanivarapu committed this offense in Denton County, the 

record supports that the jury could have found by a preponderance of the 

evidence that venue was proved. The record demonstrates that witnesses 

observed Wife and Sanivarapu arguing while Sanivarapu was in the couple’s 

SUV and Wife was standing dangerously on the side of Interstate 35 in Denton

County. Specifically, the witnesses described the argument as one-sided 

wherein Sanivarapu was yelling at Wife. A reasonable inference from this 

evidence is that Sanivarapu stopped the SUV during the time, immediately prior 

to the time, or immediately after the time that he was assaulting her and that this 

physical altercation is why she exited the SUV in such a precarious place and 

why she walked down the exit ramp in the dark rather than getting back into the 

SUV. These same witnesses described how after Wife walked down the exit 

ramp, Sanivarapu circled back around so that he could yell at Wife again. A 

reasonable inference from this evidence is that Sanivarapu was still presently 

angry with Wife, and thus it is reasonable to infer that Sanivarapu had recently 

struck Wife in anger and that enough time had not passed for him to calm down, 

inferring that the couple’s altercation was very recent. Furthermore, Nair 

described how when he first made contact with Wife, he observed dried and 

fresh blood on Wife’s nostrils, on the right side of her forehead, toward her 
21

hairline, and in her right ear. A reasonable inference from the fact that wife had 

fresh blood on her is that she had been struck very recently. We hold that a 

rational factfinder could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Sanivarapu struck Wife in Denton County and thus properly made an affirmative 

finding that Denton County was the proper venue. See Williams, 356 S.W.3d at 

518. We overrule Sanivarapu’s third issue.

IV. Conclusion

Having overruled all four of Sanivarapu’s issues on appeal, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 26, 2018