To a vo id co nf us ion be c a

us e of the c omm on surn a me , we wi ll re fe r to the pa rt ie s b y the ir 1 fi rs t na me s. 

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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 220 -CV

Le e G odfr e y , J r ., App e lla nt

v. Elizabeth Godfrey , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 07- 0104 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Claiming past incidents of family violence a

nd the threat of future ones, appe llee Eliz abeth Godfre y , with he r two children, left the home she had been sharing wi t h ap pellant L e e Go df re y , Jr. , in J a nu a ry

20 07 , a nd ob ta ine d a

te mpo ra ry pr ote c tiv e or de r r e str ic tin g L e e ’s a c c e ss to her a nd the childre n. Subsequently , following an evide ntiary hear ing be fore the district court, the 1 court enter ed a final protec tive order , eff ective f or two y ear s, forbidding L ee f rom committing any act of family violence; dire ctly

comm unicating with Eliz abeth or the childre n; eng ag ing in a ny

c on du c t di re c te d to wa

rd a ny me mbe r of El iza

be th’ s fa mil y or

ho us e ho ld “ that is re a so na bly lik e ly to hara ss, ann o y , alar

m, abuse, torment or

embar rass that pe rson”; or, e x cept f or super vised visitation order ed by

the cour t, going within 200 y ards of Eliz abeth or her f amily or household, her

residenc e,2

her pla ce of

employ ment, or any school or child-ca re fac ility attended by

the childre n. The prote ctive

or de r i nc or

po rate d f ind ing s th a t L e e ha d c omm itt e d f a mil y vio le nc e and

that f a mil y vi ol ence is likely to occur in the fore seea

ble future

. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.001 (West 2002), § 85.022 (West Supp. 2007) (conditioning family violence pr otective or ders on f indings that fa

mily violence has occ urre d and is likely to occur in the future)

. L e e a pp e a ls. I n a sing le iss ue , he c on te nd s tha t the e vid e nc e wa s leg a lly a nd fa c tua lly insufficient to support the district court’s finding s that he had committed family violence a

nd that family violence is likely to oc cur in the f uture. We sustain a leg al suffic iency complaint if the re cord

reve als: (a) the complete a bsence of a vital fa ct; (b) the c ourt is barre d by rules of law or of evide nce fr om g ivi ngwe ig ht t o th e on ly e vid e nc e of

fe re d to pr ov e a

vit a l f a c t; ( c ) t he e vid e nc e of

fe re d to prove a vital fac t is no more than a mer e scintilla; or (d) the evidenc e esta blishes conclusively

the opposite of the vital fac t. City of Keller v. W ilson , 168 S.W. 3d

80 2, 81 0 ( Te x. 20 05 ). Th e ult imate test for leg al suffic iency

is whether the evidenc e at tria l would enable r easona ble and f air-minded people to make the finding under r eview. See id. at 827.

When the evidenc e off

ere d to p ro v e a vit al fa ct is so weak a s to do no more than

cre ate a mere surmise or suspicion of its exis tence , the evidence is less than a scintilla and, in leg al eff ect, is no evide nce. See F

ord Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004). But more than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts if the evidenc e rises to a level that would enable rea sonable a nd fair- minded people to diffe r in their conc lusions. Id

. We re vie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht f a vo ra ble to the finding , cre diting fa vorable evid en ce i f a reasona ble fa ct-finde r could a

nd disreg arding contra ry evidenc e unless a reasonable fac t-finder could not. See City of Keller , 168 S.W .3d at 807.3 When review ing a

challeng e to the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence supporting

a vit a l f a c t, w e mus t c on sid e r, we ig h, a nd e xami ne a ll o f t

he ev id ence in t

he re c or d, bo th supporting a

nd ag ainst the finding , to decide w hether the findi ng should be set aside. Plas-Tex, Inc

. v. U.S. Stee l Corp. , 77 2 S.W. 2d 44 2, 44 5 (Tex . 1 98 9) ; Pool v. Ford Motor Co. , 715 S.W .2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). We should set aside the finding only if t h e evide nce that supports the fi n d ing is so we ak as to be clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Se e Cai n v . B ain , 7 0 9 S.W .2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).

During the hea

ring , Eliz abe t h testified to an incident of violence that occur

red at approximately

4 a.m. on J anuar

y 16, 2007. Eliz abeth state d that at appr ox imately 2 a.m., while she was in bed w ith their one-a nd-a- half y ear -old daug hter, s h e b ec ame awar e that L ee ha d taken he r purse f rom the room and be g un to rifle throug h it. She recoun t ed that, ar ound 4 a.m., L ee, w hom sh e de sc ri be d a s “ fr

us tr a te d, str e sse d, ma d, [an d] ang ry ,” be g a n d e mand ingto s pe a k w ithhe r. Th is als o woke up the c hild. Eliz abeth initially ignor ed him. Eventually , she re counted, L ee be g an “y e lli nga t me to c ome ou t” to t he ir liv ingro om t o d isc us s “ so me fr ie nd s’ ph on e nu mbe rs in m y purse f rom work . . . who those people we re.” L ee , E l i z ab et h claimed, c ame c loser, y elling in a

manner that his saliva was hitting he r. B y that time, she observe d, she wa s holding their young d a u g h t e r , w h o “ w a s a f

r a i d

. . . s t a rt e d s h a k i n g [a n d ] t r e m b l i n g i n m y a r

m s . ” L e e , a c c o r d i ng to Eliz abeth, “ told her that daddy was not g oing to hit mommy ,” an ac t t h at s he “be lieve[d] ” her da ug hte r h a d s e e n L e e c omm it p re vio us ly . T he se c on d c hil d, sh e a dd e d, wa s a lso c ry ingand up se t. Th e n, El iza

be th r e c ounte d, L e e “ g ra

bb e d a ha nd fu l of my ha ir ,” wh ic h hur

t he r, a nd sh e a c c e de d to his de mand s to c ome ta lk t o h im i n th e liv ingro om.I n fa c t, El iza be th a c kn ow le dg e d th a t sh e ha d u se d d ru g s w ithL e e a s r e c e ntl y

a s a mon th 2 be fo re the inc ide nt. 4

As she sat on the living room couch, Eliz abeth testified, L ee a ng rily questioned her about the phone numbe rs he ha d found as we ll a s names of fr iends with whom she had g one out the prec eding Saturday ; “[h] e wa n t ed t h eir name, addr ess, phone number , what they had to eat.” El iza be th n ote d th a t L e e wa s b ipo lar a nd ha d c on fi de d that he ha d n ot b e e n ta kin g his me dic a tio ns , that “he w as using coca ine, speed, [or] methamphetamine” and had of fer ed her drug s that night, a

nd that he had use d drug s “our whole marria g e.” El i z ab et h d i aled 9-1-1 and se t the still -conne cted 2 phone down on a

dresse r; she explained that during previous ca lls to 9-1-1, L ee “h a[ d ] t aken the phone awa

y or preve nted me . . . from dialing it.” L ee saw the phone, unplugg ed it from the jac k, and continued y elling at her. The sheriff ’s offic e re sponded. Eliz abeth testified that L ee ha d committed other ac ts of vi o l en ce against her, inc lud ingan in c ide nt o n Jan ua ry 7, 20 07 , in wh ic h he tr ie d to pr e ve nt he r fr om dr ivi ng a ve hic le to

wo rk a ft e r t he ir ins ur a nc e ha d la

ps e d. Duri ng thi s in c ide nt, El iza be th r e c ounte d, L e e “ pu sh e d me i nt h e ch es t , ” ca u s i n g h er t o fa l l b ac kwa rd s o n t o a c o u ch wh er e b o t h o f t h ei r c h i l dre n we re s i t t i n g. Duri ngthe pr e vio us e ve nin g , s he a dd e d, L e e ha d att e mpt e d to ra pe he r, a nd

ha d p re vio us ly

se xua lly assaulted he r “[m] ore tha n a dozen” times. Eliza b eth also pre sented e vidence reg ardinga 2005 incident when she “wa s try ing to lea ve” a nd L ee “ cra

wled up on the hood of

the ca r and punc hed the windshield” while she, pr eg nant, was inside. She introduc ed a photog raph of the broke n windshield. Eliz abeth testified that she did not leave that night and w as af raid to do so.Wit nesses de scribed the structure as an RV with a built-on a rea . 3 5 Eliz abeth de cided that “ it was enoug h” and l ef t t h e house with her c hildren on J anuar y 21, leaving behind many o f t h eir belonging s, and filed a ssault char g es and a n application for a protec tive order . Eliz abeth c laimed that this w as her first opportunity to leave f

ollowing the J anuar y 16 incident. I t was undisput ed that an ice storm had hit the are a on January 16—law enfor ceme nt who responde d that morning h ad ch ai n s on their tires. Elizabeth furthe r explained that she had not s o u gh t t h e assistance of law e nforc ement in leavingduring the morning of J anuar y 16 beca use she ha d believed she would have ha d to leave he r childre n behind. Eliz abeth testified at trial that she was afr aid that L ee would be violent in the future and fe are d f

or he r s a fe ty

a nd tha t of the c hil dr e n, no tin g that “ [h]e ha s to ld m e in t he pa st that if Iever l ef t t h at h e could come f

ind me.” Elizabeth adde d that she had be en “a fra id” to leave afte r past incidents. She further observe d that L ee had been place d on probation for i l l ega l l y ca rry ing a loade d wea

pon. In a d d i t i o n t o h e r

o w n t e s t i m o n y, E l i z a

b e t h c a l l e d

D e p u t y S t e v e n E s p i n o z a

t o t e s t i f y. Deputy Espinoza described his investig ation of t h e January 16 incident. He r ecounte d that L ee,

r a th e r e mo ti o n a ll y , h a d

s tate d th a t h e w a s b ip o la

r an d w a s a p o lo g e ti c a

b o u t h is b e h a v io r . E s p in o za

no te d th a t it wa s ag re e d tha t Eliza be th an d the c hil dr e n w ou ld s le e p in L e e ’s pa re nts ’ s e pa

rate ho me on the prope rty

for the remainde r of the e vening , while L ee w ould remain in the sepa rate structure wher e his family

usually lived. Espinoza a dded that L ee’ s fathe r had asked Espinoza to retrieve a

3 l o a d e d g u nf r o m th e c o u

p l e ’ s dw e l l i n g f

o r s a f e t y.6 L ee te s t i fied a

nd disputed Eliz abeth’ s version of e vents. Reg ardingthe J anu ar y 1 6 e p is o d e , L e e a d mi tt e d to b e in g s u s p ic io u s th a t E li za b e th w a s s e e in g other men, g oin g thr ou g h h e r pu rse , a nd tr y ingto w a ke he r t o ta lk, bu t in sis te d th a t sh e ha d atta c ke d h im and that, at most , he had shove d her of f of him. Deputy

Espinoza testified that L ee ma de

s t a t e m e n t s t o t h i s e f

f e c td u r i n g h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t
. L e e a l s o c a l l e d a n o t h e r H a ys County deputy , Patrick Cheatham; L ee’ s mother; and two fr iends of the c ouple. DuringEliz abeth’ s

cross-e x am i n at i o n and throug hout the testimony of other w itnesses, L ee attempted to identify discrepa ncies be tween E liz abeth’ s testimony and prior statements in

h e r p r o te c ti v e o r d e r

application, her statements to la

w enfor ceme nt, a

nd diaries or journals she ke pt. These pur ported inconsistenc es

conce rned va

rious detai l s re l at edt o t h e a l l ege d i n ci d en t s , i n cl u d i n g p re ci s el y wh er e Lee w as s t an d i ng when he was y elling at her in bed on January 16, 2007, wher e the pa ir wer e l o ca ted when L ee g r a b b e d h e r h a ir , th e d e g r e e o f

v io le n c e s h e h a d

c o n te mp o r a n e o u s ly

d e p ic te d to la w e n f o r c e me nt (e.g ., whether L ee’ s g rabbing of her hair had cause d her pain), and the date of the inc ident in which L ee a lleg edly

pushed her

. L ee also attacke d Eliz abeth’ s cre dibilit y by sug g esting that she had not pr e vio us ly

divulg e d to fa

mil y , f ri e nd s o r l a w e nf

or c e me nt , o r r e c or de d in

he r w ri tin g s, va

ri ou s e ve nts she cla imed at trial, including the multiple alleg ed sexual assaults or other a cts of v i o l en ce, even while she purpor

tedly would discuss intimate matters like the couple ’s sex li fe. L ee a lso insis ted that her c laims of phy sical abuse , including the pulled-hair inc ident, wer e inconsistent with phy sical evidenc e. On the othe r hand, L ee’ s mother admitted during cross-e x amination that L ee had a history of mental he alth problems, i ncluding three visits to the s tate hospi tal and other incidents in which he had be en suicidal, including one in which he was found to have a loa ded g un in his car.7 On appe al, L ee a

rg ues t h at no rational fa ct finder could have found that he committed family

violence or t h at h e was likely to commit family

violence in the f

uture “base d on the inconsistent, uncorr oborate d evidenc e re ceive d at trial.” L ee f urther e mphasizes that the c ou ple wa s g oin g thr ou g h a div or c e , sug g e sti ngtha t E liza be th h a d th e mot ive to f

a br ic a te fa mil y violence claims to g ain advantag e in reg ard to child custody

. See Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 153.004 (West Supp. 2007). L ee ur g es that the district cour t “should have a

pprec iated the stake s at hand (i .e ., the imp e nd ingdiv or c e ) wh e n ass e ssi ng the we ig ht to be g ive n th e te sti mony of the a pp lic a nt” and that “[v]iewing the inc onsistent testim ony with the prudenc e re quired whe n [a family violence]

acc usation is leveled in the midst of a divorce or child custody ty pe atmospher e, it is clear

that the C o u rt erre d

i n v al i d at i n g cr

u ci al t es t i m o n y p ro v i d ed b y ap p el l an t an d d ec i d i n g t o ac co rd i ten o u gh weig ht to support the family violence f

inding.” Un de r b oth

our l e g a l and

fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y sta nd a rd s, th e fa c t- fi nd e r i s th e so le ju d g e o f th e w it n e s s e s ’ c r e d ib il it

y a n d th e w e ig h t t o b e g iv e n th e ir te s ti mo ny . See City of Keller , 1 6 8 S.W .3d at 819 (unde r leg al-suff iciency standard, the fac t-finder is “the sole judg e[] of the

cre dibilit y

of the witnesse s and the weig ht to be given their testimony

. [I t] may choose to be lieve

on e wi tne ss a

nd dis be lie ve a no the r. Re vie wi ngc ourt s c a nn ot i mpo se the ir ow n o pin ion s to t h e c o n t r ar

y . ” ) ( f o o t n o t e s omi tte d) ; P o ol , 7 15 S.W. 2d a t 63 5 ( “ I t is a

fa mil iar p ri nc ipl e that in conducting a factual sufficiency revie w, a court must not mere ly substitut e it s judgme nt for that of the jur y . I t is a n e qu a ll y f

a mi li a r p r in c ip le th at th e ju r y is th e s o le ju d g e o f th e c r e d ib ility of wi tne sse s and

the we ig ht t o b e g ive n to th eir test imo ny .” ) ( fo otn ote s o mit te d) . U nd e r t he se estab li s h e d p r in c ip le s , th e matt e r s o f w h ic h L e e c o mp la in s a r e w it h in th e p r o v in c e o f th e district8

court to dete rmine. We conclude that the evidenc e was leg ally and fac tually sufficie nt to support the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s.

We overrule L ee’ s issue and af firm the district cour

t’s order

.

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 8, 2008