No . 01-14-00952-CV

I N TH E COUR T O F APPEA L FO RTH E FIRS T DISTRIC T O F TEXA S

HOUSTON , TEXA S

HERBER T JACKSO N Appellant-Respondent PATRICI A JACKSO N Appellee-Applican t Appea l from th

e 328 TM JUDICIA L DISTRIC T COUR T CAUS E NO . 14-DCV-217167 FOR T BEN D COUNTY , TEXA S BRJE F FO RAPPELLAN T
Anni e P . Brisco e 121 7 Prairi e St. , Suit

e 20 7 Houston , Texa

s 7700 2 71 3 270-873

2 Telephone 71 3 227-006

6 Telecopie r anniepump@yahoo.com Attorne y fo r Appellan tHerber tJackso n ACCEPTED 01-14-00952-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/1/2015 10:01:09 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKTABL E O F CONTEN T

Certificat e o f

Intereste dPerson s 4 Statement

regardin g ora l argument s 4 Tabl e o f Content s 2 Tabl e o f Citation s 3 > 4 Statement

o f the Issue s 5 Issu e On e 5 Issu e Tw o 5 Statement

o f th e Cas e 5 > 6 Summar y o f

argument s 7 Argumen t

an dauthoritie s 7-1 2 Praye r fo r relie f 1 2 Certificat e o f

Servic e 13
.

2TABL E O F CITATION S

STATUTES , CASE S AN D AUTHORITIE S Page 3 STATUTE S Art . V, § 6 of

the Texa

s Constitutio n 1 0 Tex . Fam . Cod e Ann . 71.00 1 8 Tex . Fam . Cod e Ann . § 81.00 1 (Verno n 1999 ) TEX.R . CIV . EVID . 901(a) . Rul e 901(b ) of the Texa

s Rule s of

Civi l 8
an d Crimina l Evidenc e 

### Tex
. R
. Crim
. Evid
. 404(b)
. 1 2 Texas Rule s o

f Procedure Nos . 451,453 , and 45 5 10 PERIODICAL S Revisitin g Standard

s o f Revie w i n Civi l Appeals

, 2 4 St
. Mary' s L.J
. 1045,114

5 (1993)
. 1 1 CASE S Boyki n v . State , 81 8 S.W.2 d 782,78 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1991 ) 9 Choat e v . Sa n Antoni o & A P R y Co . 9 0 Te x 189 6 1 0 Cockerham v . Cockerham 21 8 S. W 3 r d29 8 (2007 ) 8 De l un a v . Stat e 71 1 S.W . 2d44,4 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1986 ) 8 Faul k v . State , 60

8 S.W.2 d 625,63 0 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) . 1 1 Huffman v . State , 74

6 S.W . 2 d 212 . 22

2 (Tex . Crim . Ap p 1988 ) 9 I n r e Epperso n 121

3 S . w 3d 541,543 (Tex . V Cour to f Appeal s 2007, n

o pet. ) 11 In r e Tex . Dep' to

f Famil y & Protective Servs. , 21 0 S.W.3 d 609,61 2 (Tex.2006) 1 2 Jakob e v . Jakobe , No . 02 - 04-00005 8 200 5 W l 50312

4 a t1 (Tex . Ap p For tWorth 8 200 5 n o pet.) . Mera z v . Stat

e 78 5 S.W . 2 d 146,149 , (Tex . Crim . App . 1990 ) 1 0

3Middleto n v . Kawasaki Stee l Corp. , 68

7 2 d 42,4 4 (Tex . App . Housto n [14 t

hDist. ] 1985

) wri tref; d n.r.e . per curiam . Poo l v . For d Moto r Co . 715 S.W . 2 d 62 9 (Tex . 1986

) Valenci a v . Garz a 76

5 S.W . 2 d 893 , 89

5 (Tex . App . Sa

n Antoni o 198

9 n o writ) . Walke rv . Packer , 82

7 S W 2 d 83 3 - Tex : Supreme Cour t1992 .CERTIFICAT E O F INTERESTE D PERSON S

Th e undersigned counse l of recor d certifies tha

tth e followin g person hav e a n interest i n th e outcom

e of this case : 1
. Herber t Jackso n Defendan

t 2
. Patrici a

Jackso n Applican t

Anni e P . Brisco e

121 7 Prairi e St. , Suit

e 20 7 Houston , Texas 7700

2 71 3 270-873

2 Telephone 71 3 227-006

6 Telecopie r anniepump@yahoo.com Attorney fo r Herber tJackso n

STATEMEN T REGARDIN G ORA L ARGUMENT S Ora l argumen t

requeste di f

th e Cour t

feel s tha t thi s appea l may b e aide db y
ora l argument .STATEMEN T O F TH E ISSUE S

ISSU E one : APPELLAN T WOUL D SHO W THA T TH E EVIDENC E PRESENTE D WA S legally and factually EVSUFFICffiN T T O MAK E A FINDIN G O F FAMIL Y VIOLENCE . ISSU E two : APPELLAN T WOUL D SHO W THA T TH E COUR T ABUSE D IT S DISCRETIO N I N MAKIN G A FINDIN G O F FAMIL Y VIOLENC E WHIC H WA S AGAINS T TH E WEIGH T O F TH E EVIDENC E PRESENTED .
STATEMEN T O F CAS E Thi s i s a n appea l fro majudgmen t entere do n September

23,201 4 i n th e 328 t hJudicia l Distric t Cour t O n Augus t

25,210 4 Appellee/applicant , PATRICI A JACKSO N fileda n applicatio n fo r

aprotectiv e orde r

t o b e issue dagains t

Appellant , HERBER T JACKSON . Appellan t

filedamotio n fo r

ne w tria l o n Octobe r

7,2014
. Th e motio n fo r ne w tria l wa s hear d
o n Octobe r

27,201 4 an dth e motio n wa s denied
. Bot h partie s wer e pr o se . Ther e were n o witnesse s a t th e hearin g othe r

tha n Appelle e an dAppellant
. Th e evidenc e Wa s th e testimon y o f

th e witnesse s an dsome photographs
. Appelle e testifie dtha

t she an dAppellan t

ha dbee n separate dsinc e 201 1 tha t she wa s afrai d o f Appellant
. Sh e state dtha t Appellan t

cam e t o he r

hous e o n Augus t

18,201 4 an dhe entere d th e hous e uninvited
. Th e partie s wer e an dar e stil l marrie dan dn o petitio n fo r divorc e ha d bee n filed. Appellan t

ha dake y t o th e hous e an dentere db y usin g hi s key
. Sh e gav e n o testimon y tha

t h e struc k

he r tha t he yelle da

t her , tha t he thre w thing s aroun di n th e hous e o r tha t h e threatene dhe r

i n an y way . Appelle e introduce dphotograph s bu t di dno t stat e whe n th e photograph s ha dbee n take n a o r ho w she cam e t o posses s th e photograph s o r eve n i f th e photograph s wer e o f he r an dho w she obtaine dth e injurie s i n th e photographs
. Appellan t

refute dth e testimon y o f Appelle e H e state dtha t the y ha dtw o residence s bu t The y staye dinvolve dwit h eac h other an dha dkey s t o eac h othe r houses
. The y eac h ha dkey s t o th e tw o houses
. Furthe r the y hav e vacation s together i n th e pas t

fou r year s an dcam e t o eac h othe r house s o n aregular

basis
. The y wer e i n fac t stil l intimat e wit h eac h othe r an dha dbee n intimat e th e nigh t

before th e inciden t

i n question
. Appellan t

wa s no t aware o f

any anger

fro meithe r party . Hi s testimon y wa s thoug h the y ha dproblem s i n th e marriag e h e believe dthe y stil l ha daviabl e marriag e an dwa s surprise da t th e inciden t O n th e nigh t

o r earl y mornin g i n questio n Appellan t testifie dtha

t h e ha dattempte d severa l time s t o cal l th e Appelle e an dh e di dno t receiv e a n answer . H e state dh e the n decide d t o g o t o th e hous e becaus e h e kne w Appelle e too k medicatio n an dwa s no t sur e i f she wa s alright
. H e state dwhe n he go t t o the hous e he ran g th e doorbel l bu t di dno t receiv e a n answer . H e testifie dh e went

t o th e bac k

doo r an dpulle dbac k

th e alread y damage dscree n use dhi s ke y an dentere dth e house
. H e state dhe an dAppelle e wer e downstair s o n th e sof atalkin g whe n th e polic e arrived
. Appellan t answere dth e doo r

an dth e polic e aske dhi mt o ste p outside
. Th e polic e mad e n o clai mo f observation s o f

scar s o r injurie s t o eithe r

party . Th e polic e mad e n o report o f havin g hear dadisturbanc e a s the y approached
. Appelle e mad e n o outcry statement s t o the polic e a

t th e tim e tha

t th e polic e wer e present . Appellan t state dh e late r foun dout

tha t th e neighbo r

ha dbee n calle db y Appellee' s daughter , wh o wa s no t a t the house , an dth e daughter ha dinstructe dth e neighbo r t o cal l th e police
. Ther e were n o injurie s t o Appellee
. Appelle e di dno t g o t o th e hospita l an dn o medica l r record s wer e entered
. Appelle e neve r testifie dt o an y kin do f violenc e a

t thi s incident
. Sh e di d no t clai mh e struc k

her , o r pushe dher , o r

yelle da t he r o r tor e of f clothing , o r

di danythin g othe r tha n com e int o th e house
. Appelle e offere dphotograph s bu t di dno t testif y a s t o what eac h o f thes e photograph s were , whe n the y wer e taken , wher e the y take n o r provid e an y other evidenc e abou t

th e photographs
. O n testimon y fro mAppellan t tha t h e ha dno t

don e anythin g to Appelle e wa s countere db y th e court tha t th e damag e t o the scree n doo r amounte dt o violence
. Appellan t contende dtha

t th e scree n doo r

wa s unstabl e an dha dbee n unstabl e fo r awhile
. Appellan t

reaso n fo r

goin g t o th e hous e wa s t o hav e adiscussio n wit h Appelle e abou t thei r livin g arrangements . Als o Appellan t

kne w tha

t Appelle e too k

medicatio n an dafte

r attemptin g t o cal l he r

severa l tim e he decid e t o g o t o he r

hous e t o determin e i f

she wa s well
. SUMMAR Y A protectiv e orde r

a s define di n Tex . Famil y cod e i s a n ac t b y afamil y o r

househol d Membe r agains t another famil y o r

househol dmembe r

intende dt o resul t

i n physica l harm , bodil y injury , assault , sexua l assaul t i s athrea

t tha t reasonabl y place s amembe r i n fea r o f imminen t

physica l harm , bodil y injury , assault , sexua l assaul t bu t doe s no t includ e an y ac tinvolvin g sel f defense
. Tex . Fam . Cod e Ann . 71.00 4 (1) . I t i s acivi l court

orde r issue dt o preven t continuin g act s o f

famil y violence
. A protectiv e orde r

an dafindin g o f

famil y violenc e carrie s significan t socia l stigma
. Cockerham v , Cockerham 21 8 S.W.3" 1302 . Fo r thi s reaso n aprotectiv e orde r shoul db e reviewe dt o see i f

th e evidenc e i s factuall y an dlegall y sufficient
. Jakob e v . Jakobe , No . 02- 04-00005

8 200 5 W l 50312

4 a t1 (Tex . Ap p For tWort h 200 5 n o pet.) . ARGUMEN T AN D AUTHORITD2 S ISSU E ON E RESTATED : APPELLAN T WOUL D SHO W THA T TH E EVIDENC E PRESENTE D WA S LEGALL Y AN D FACTUALL Y INSUFFICIEN T T O MAK E A FINDIN G O F FAMIL Y VIOLENCE . Therefor e th e evidenc e mus t b e evidenc e tha

t ca n b e presente dan dmus t b e evidenc e tha

t i s presente dproperly
. Th e onl y evidenc e offere di n the cas e wa s th e testimon y o f th e partie s an dsome ol d photographs
. I n lookin g a t al l th e evidenc e i t

present acleare r

pictur e base do n th e conduc t o f th e partie s i n th e pas t

an du p to th e dat

e O f th e allege dinciden t

o f whethe r famil y violenc e wa s likel y t o occu r i n th e future
. Th e photograph s wer e no t i n authenticate dan dtherefore wer e merel y presente dt o bia s th e Court
. Th e tim e th e photograph s wer e taken , wh o wa s th e perso n th e photographs , non e o f thi s wa s taken int o account . Ther e i s arequiremen t

o f authenticatio n o r

identificatio n a s aconditio n preceden t t o admissibilit y o f

evidence
. TEX.R . CIV . EVH) . 901(a) . Rul e 901(b ) of the Texa

s Rule s of

Civi l
and Crimina l Evidenc e contain s th e authenticatio n o r identificatio n requirement s fo r certai n type s
o f evidence
. TEX.R . CIV . EVH ) 901(b) ; TEX.R.CRTM . EVID . 901(b) . an deve n thoug h photograph s ar

e no t specificall y stat

e i n thos e rules , there i s acommo n la w predicat e fo r th e admissio n o f

thes e item s int o evidence
. DeLun a v . Stat e 71 1 S.W . 2d44,4 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1986 ) Th e introductio n o f

aphotograp h require s proo f o f (1 ) it s accurac y a s acorrec t 8representatio n o f th e subjec t

a t agive n time , an d(2 ) it s relevanc e t o amateria l issue
. Huffman v . State , 74

6 S.W . 2 d 212.22

2 (Tex . Crim . Ap p 1988) . Appellan t

objecte da s h

e ha dno t see n thes e photograph s an dtherefore wa s unabl e t o establis h hi s defens e o r t o eve n properl y cros s examin e th e evidence
. Eve n thoug h th e Cour t ha s some discretio n i n the allowin g o f photograph s th e court

ha s aresponsibilit y t o determin e i f th e evidenc e wa s admissible
. Walke rv . Packer , 82 7 S W 2 d 83 3 - Tex : Supreme Cour t1992 . Thus , Appellan t

shoul dhav e bee n afforde dsome opportunity t o defen db y bein g abl e to discove r th e document s tha

t Appelle e wa s presentin g rather than bein g surprise db y th e photographs
. Therefor e Appelle e faile dt o presen t factua l o f

lega l evidenc e t o suppor t he r applicatio n an d th e cas e protectiv e orde r shoul db e vacated
. ISSU E TW O RESTATED : APPELLAN T WOUL D SHO W THA T TH E COUR T ABUSE D IT S DISCRETIO N I N MAKIN G A FINDIN G O F FAMIL Y VIOLENC E WHIC H WA S AGAINS T TH E WEIGH T O F TH E EVIDENC E PRESENTED . Th e Cour t

i s expecte dt

o interpre t

the fact s presente dt

o i t i n an effor

t t o rul e base do n the inten t o f the legislator s i n composin g th e statue,. " Boyki n v . Stat e 81 8 S.W , 2 d782 , 78 5 (Tex
. C rim , App
. 1

9* > 1) . A protectiv e orde r a s define di n Tex . Famil y cod e i s a n ac t b y afamil y o r househol dmembe r

agains t another famil y o r

househol dmembe r

intende dt o resul t

i n physica l harm , bodil y injury , assault , sexua l assaul t i s athrea

t tha t reasonabl y place s amembe r i n fea r o f imminen t

physica l harm , bodil y injury , assault , sexua l assaul t bu t doe s no t includ e any ac t involvin g sel f

defense
. Tex . Fam . Cod e Ann . 71.00 4 (1) . It i s acivi l court

orde r issue dt o preven t continuin g act s o f

famil y violence
. I f w e focu s ou r

intentio n o n thi s statut e i t i s a n effor

t t o kee p famil y member s fro mcausin g seriou s har mt o another famil y member
. I

t i s no t a n inten t

o f th e court s t o refere e eac h an d
every famil y argument . Th e desir e i s fo r th e court

t o b e abl e us e th e languag e o f th e statut

e an dth e meanin g o f

th e statut

e t o b e abl e t o reac h ajustifiabl e decisio n whic h support s th e statute . Consequentl y Appellan t woul dsho w tha

t thi s verdic t

shoul db e reviewe dfo r lega l sufficienc y 9

### star

t b y considerin g al l th e evidence
. Appellan t woul dals o sho w tha

t evidenc e mus t

b e discarde d whe n i t doe s no t suppor t averdict
. Th e Texa s Suprem e Cour t ha s consistentl y interprete dArt . V , § 6 of th e Texa s Constitutio n t o mean tha t th e court s o f

civi l appeals , an dlate r

th e court s o f

appeals , hav e th e authority an dresponsibilit y t o revie w th e verdict s i n civi l case s t o determin e whethe r th e evidenc e i s factuall y sufficient
. Mera z v . Stat e 78 5 S.W . 2 d 146,149 , (Tex . Crim . App . 1990); . Poo l v . For d Moto rCo . 715 S.W . 2 d 62 8 (Tex . 1986

) Choat e v . San Antoni o & A P R y Co . 9 1 Te x 406 . Tha t

court ha s state dtha

t th e scop e o f

revie w under

afactuall y sufficien t

poin t require s th e Cour t

o f Civi l Appeals , i n th e exercis e o f it s peculia r

power s unde r

th e constitutio n an d Texa s Rule s o f Procedur e Nos . 451,453 , and 455 , t o conside r an dweig h al l o f

th e evidenc e i n th e cas e an dt o se

t asid e th e verdic t

an dreman dth e caus e fo r anew trial , i f

i t thu s conclude s tha

t th e verdic t

i s s o agains t

th e grea t weigh t an dpreponderanc e o f

th e evidenc e a s t o b e manifestl y unjust
. Th e ide ao f

lookin g a

t th e meanin g o f

th e statut

e i s t o insur e tha

t th e fac t finder' s ow n interpretatio n o f

th e statut

e wil l no t produc e a n absur dresult
. Faul k v . Stat e 60 8 S.W . 2 d 625,63 0 (Te x Cr . App . 1980) . Hence , Appellan t

reques t th e court

t o revie w th e tria l court' s finding s fo r lega l an dfactuall y sufficienc y o f

th e evidenc e b y th e sam e standard s a s i n reviewin g th e evidenc e supportin g ajur y verdict , Revisiting Standards of Review in Civil

Appeals, 2

4 St . Mary' s L.J . 1045,114 5 (1993) . Sinc e th e tria l court

finding s i n abenc h tria l hav e th e impac t a s ajur y verdic t

i t an dthere wer e n o finding s o f

fac t Appellan t

reques t th e Cour t

revie w th e complet e statement o f fact s i n th e record
. Middleto n v . Kawasak i Stee l Corp. , 68

7 2 d 42,4 4 (Tex . App . Housto n [14 t h

### Dist -1 1985 ) wri t ref; d n.r.e . percuriam .
1 0Ther e wer e n o forma l finding s o f fac t whe n Appellan t

aske dth e court

what wa s th e famil y violenc e th e court

state di t wa s the " ripping " off

o f th e scree n door
. Ther e wa s n o testimon y b y eithe r part y tha t th e scree n doo r

wa s rippe doff
. Despit e thi s howeve r i n orde r fo r thi s t o mee t

th e definitio n o f

famil y violenc e there ha s t o b e some receptio n b y th e party t o who mth e violenc e wa s suppose dt o hav e bee n directe dfo r violenc e t o hav e occurred
. Th e Appelle e woul deithe r hav e t o ha dseen , hear do r

fel t th e doo r wa s rippe doff

t o b e place di n fear
. Furthe r there wa s n o testimon y fro mAppelle e tha

t she hear dth e scree n doo r bein g rippe do r

tha t she sa w th e scree n doo r bein g rippe do r anythin g abou t

th e screene do r

tha t woul dplac e her

i n fear
. No r

ca n w e tel l fro mth e photograph s whe n th e scree n wa s torn . Ther e wa s n o investigatio n don e b y th e polic e t o corroborat e Appellee' s story . Sinc e th e statut

e state s there ca n b e afindin g o f famil y violenc e i f

i t i s likel y t o occu r

agai n i t appear s fro mth e limite devidenc e presente dtha t th e findin g wa s base do n somethin g havin g happene dbefor e rather

than any evidenc e tha

t i t i s likel y t o happe n again
. Thoug h ofte n there are inference s draw n tha t i f somethin g ha s happene di n th e pas t i t wil l happe n i n th e futur

e there i s n o absolut e assurance s tha t apas t actio n wil l happe n again
. I n r e Epperso n 21

3 S . W 3 d 541,543 (Tex . Cour tof Appeal s 2007) . Th e inferenc e her

e howeve r

mus t hav e somethin g mor e tha n amere testimon y o f Appelle e tha t she wa s afraid
. Thi s i s especiall y tru e whe n w e loo k a t the conduc t

o f Appelle e i n tha

t she an d Appelle e ha dkey s t o both houses , the y ha dbee n comin g an dgoin g to bot h houses
. The y ha dbee n intimat e as recent

a s the nigh t

o r day before
. A mor e factua l applicatio n woul db e i f there i s some overt

ac t whic h seem s t o indicat e tha t Violenc e i s likel y t o occu r agai n fo r

exampl e threa

t o f some kind
. Appelle e presente dnothin g tha t sai dtha t Appellan t

ha dthreatene dher
. Sh e di dindicat e tha t he ha dcalle dhe r

names , bu t

no t indicate dh e ha dattache dany threat s t o th e name calling
. Perhap s a n eve n mor e sensibl e approac h woul db e t o vie w al l the evidence
. Th e court s hav e foun dtha t i t i s fre e fo r

th e fac t finde r t o accep t o r rejec t al l o f awitnes s testimony
. Valenci a v . Garz a 76 5 S.W . 2 d 893,89 5 ( Y Tex . App . San Antoni o 198

9 n o writ) . Howeve r

i t woul db e a n abus e t o accep t th e testimon y o f

Appelle e tha

t 1 1

### sh e ha s bee n afrai dfo r th e pas t fou r year s an dignor e th e testimon y tha t sh e ver y recentl y gav e Appellan t

ake y an dtha

t the y wer e intimat e wit h eac h other jus t afe w hour s before withou t there bein g som e othe r

overt ac t o f Appellan t

t o reestablis h fear
. Crimina l rule s o f evidenc e stat

e tha t 

### wrong s d o no t

prov e character
. Tex

. R
. Crim
. Evid
. 404 (b)
. Tha t Rul e provides : 

### "Evidenc e o f othe r crimes , wrongs , o r act s i s no t admissibl e

t o prov e th e characte r o f a perso n i n orde r t o sho w tha t h e acte d i n conformit

y therewith. " Thoug h th e protectiv e orde r i n itsel f i s no t criminal th

e fac t ther e can b e consequence

s I n whic h th e libert y o f a perso n can b e take n awa y make s thi s elemen t o f evidenc e ver y important
. In r e 

### Tex
. Dep ' t o f Famil y & Protective Servs. , 

### 21 0 S.W .3 d 

### 609,61 2 (Tex.2006)

. I f th e tria l court fail s t o properl y interpre t th e la w o r

applie s th e la w incorrectly , i t abuse s it s discretion
. 

### Therefor e th e cour t abuse d it s discretio n i n makin g a findin g tha t famil y violenc e ha d occurre d an d wa s likel y t o occu r agai n an d th e protectiv e orde r shoul d b e vacated
.
WHEREFOR

E PREMISE S CONSIDERED

, Appellan

t pray s that th e protectiv e orde r b e vacate d an d judgmen t b e se t aside , th e caus e dismisse d Appellan t pray s fo r an y furthe r relief
. PRAYE R

Respectfully submitted

Anni e P . Brisco e 121 7 Prairi e Street, Suit

e 20 7 Houston , Texa

s 7700 2 713-270-873

2 Telephone 71 3 227-006

6 Telecopie r TBN.03008500 anniepump@yahoo.com Attorne y fo r Appellant , Herber tJackso n

1 2CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I , Attorne y Anni e P . Briscoe , certif y tha t today , Jun e 1,2015 , acop y o f th e brie f

fo r Appellant , wer e serve dupo n Patrici aJackso n 2015HiltonheadDr
. Missour i City , Texas , 7745 9

Anni e P . Brisco e

1 3