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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 675 -CR

St e ve n R. M ue lle r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 3 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. C-1- CR-07 -21 2229 , HO NORAB LE DAVID CRAIN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th e tr ia l c ourt c on vic te d Ste ve n R. Mu e lle r of the of fe ns e of a ssa

ult wi th bo dily injury
. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 22.01(a) (1) ( West S upp. 2007). Punishment was assesse d at 150 day s in the Travis County J ail. I n a sing l e p o i n t o f er ro r, Mueller challeng es the leg al and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e . We wi ll a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND The trial court hear d evidenc e that on June 21, 2007, Mueller ente red a g roce ry store, g rab bed a g roce ry

bag , place d some items in the bag , and exited the store without paying f or the items. Daniel Hislop, a loss preve ntion o ff i cer for the g roce ry

store, testified that he and Gr e g Ste wa

rt , an oth e r suc h off

ic e r, “ c on fr on te d [Mue lle r], tol d him w ho we we re , [and ] as ke d h im to come bac k inside.” Ac cordingto Hislop, Mueller initially cooper ated. The three went upstairs to the brea

k room by

the store mana g er’ s office and starte d filling out pape rwork.2 Per the mana g er’ s instructions, Hislop went downsta i rs t o call the police beca use,
acc ording to Hislop, Mueller “ha d been in the store be fore trying to stea l and he ha d been a sked not to c ome [ba c k].” Whe n His lop re tur ne d to the br e a k roo m, Mue lle r wa s “ sta nd ingup putti nga ll h is be lon g ing s in to h is po cke ts. ” Hi slo p “ tol d h im t o s it d ow n, wh ic h h e did , th e n h e y e lle d th is i s
an F -i ngwa ste of

tim e and c ame tow ard [] me. Iput my ph on e in my

po c ke t and

tol d h im t o s it back down.” Mueller

did not, however , sit back down. Instead, a ccor ding t o Hi s l o p , the following occur

red:
Th e n h e c ame tow ard [] me. Ipo int e d f or him to s it b a c k d ow n a

nd he str uc k me in my chest with his left hand a nd scratched me unde r my left ey e with his rig ht hand. So Iwra pped him up, threw him on the g round, told him to c alm down. He sa id he wa s, so we put hi m ba c k in his c ha ir [,] and

ha d th e ass is tan t st or e dir e c tor , M ari o Montivias, call 911.
Hi slo p p ro vid e d th e fo llo wi nga dd iti on a l te sti mony a bo ut t he inc ide nt: Q: Whe n h e hit

y ou on the c he st, wa s th a t in te nti on a l? A: Ithi nk

he wa s tr yingto p us h me do wn

so he c ou ld g e t out. Q: Did that cause y ou pain? A: A l itt le bit
. Q: How about whe n y ou wer e struck in the f ace ? A: Ihad a pr etty

g ood littl e re d g ash up under my ey e that I had to see k medical treatment for. Q: How did he hit y ou when you wer e struck on the fac e? A: Hi s h and

c ame up and

un de r my

e y e lik e that.3

Q: Was that a quick movement, wa s it deliberate? A: Yea

h. Be cause he ca

me, he ha d his first hand out like this and then he we nt up lik e that.
On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Hi slo p a dd e d th a t Mu e lle r “ put hi s wh ole arm int o my c he st. ” On re dir e c t, Hislop further te stified, “My ey e, it was a ll red and a

littl e swol l en . Imean, be cause that scratch
came may

be about a

half to 1 inch be low my

ey e.” The only other witness to te stify during trial was Mue ller. Mueller denied a ssaulting Hislop or putting his hands on him in any way . Acc ording to Mueller, it was Hislop and Stewa rt who wer e “c o m i n g at ” him , and if Mueller raised his ha

nd, “it was just in a def

ensive g esture.” Mueller testified, “I mig ht have thre w up my hands, but no . . . Idid not just g et up and shove any body .” Mueller further testified t hat he did not intend to cause Hislop any phy sical pain. Mueller
was a lso asked, “T his thing about you putting up yo u r arm and trying to c ome towar d him so that y ou can le ave, did you do that? ” Mueller answe red,
I f i t di d o c c ur , it

ha pp e ne d s o f

a st the —if

my arm s d id b e c ome ra ise d, it w a s to ta lly as a r eac tion to being tac k l ed b y them. And no, I

have no r ecollec tion at all of consciously

putting my

hands up. I f i t happene d, it was tot ally out of reaction. And that’s exactly

what I told them at the time. That’s what I said all along . That wa s the only way my hands ca me up.
A videotape of the incident was admitted into e vidence for th e t ri al court’s consideration. However , afte r the c lose of evide nce, the trial court state d, on the re cord,
Ididn’t find [t he videotape ] enormously helpful b ec au s e they

fall off the scre en or may be the a ssa

ult oc c ur re d of f the sc re e n. I t wo uld

a pp e ar t o me that in ste a d o f j us t a re g ular video . . . w here y ou see e very thing, it looks like a picture is take n out ever y half a second or something like that. You don’t see the wh o l e c o n tinuous movement. . . . [I ]t looked kind of choppy like that to me . I ’m rely ing mor e on the4

testimony
. And based on the testimony and who I found the most cre dible, Ifind the defe ndant g uilty

as cha rg ed.
Th e tr ia l c ourt

the n a sse sse d p un ish me nt at 15 0 day s in the Tr a vis Cou nty Jail . T his appea l followed.
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW When there is a c halleng e to the leg al suffic iency of the ev idence to sustain a crim i n al co n v i cti on, we c onsider whe ther a rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the offe nse beyond a re asonable doubt. Vo do cho ds ky v. Sta te , 158 S.W .3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We revie w all the evidence in the l ight most favor able to the ve rdict and
as s u m e that the trier of fa ct re solved conflicts in the testimony , weig hed the e vidence , and dre w
rea sonable infe renc es in a manne r that supports the ver dict. S e e R o l l e r s o n v . S ta te , 2 2 7 S .W.3d 71 8, 72 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Sh am s v . S tate , 195 S.W .3d 346, 347 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, p et . re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Gr iff

in v . S tate , 614 S.W .2d 155, 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)). I t is not necessar y that ever y fac t point dir ec t l y and independently to the defe ndant’s guilt, but i t is enoug h if the conclusion is war

ranted b y t h e combined and c umulative forc e of a ll the incriminating circ umstances. Ho op e r v . S tate , 214 S.W .3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w, we vie w the e vid e nc e in a neu tra l li g ht a nd a sk wh e the r a tr ie r of fa c t wa s ratio na lly jus tif ie d in fi nd ing g uil t be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. See W

atson
v . S tate , 20 4 S.W. 3d 40 4, 41 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); se e als o W oo le y v . S tate , ___ S.W .3d ___, 2 0 0 8 T e x . C r i m . A p p . L E X IS 7 6 2 , a t* 2 1 ( T e x . C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tf a c tu a l s u f f i c i e n c y, l i k e l e g a l s u f

f i c i e n c y, s h o u l d

b e m e a s u r e d

“ b y t h e e l e m e n t s o f

t h e o f f e n s e a s d e f

i n e d b y a hy pothetically

corr ect jury

char g e”) . We then deter mine whether

the evidenc e su p p o rt i n g the5

verdic t is so weak tha t t he ver dict is clear ly wrongand manife stly

unjust or whether

the verdic t is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conf l i ct i n g ev i d ence . Id . at 415. “The verdic t may be set aside only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming w eig ht of the evide nce as to be c lear ly

wrongand unjust.” Gr ott i v . S tate , _ _ _ _ S
. W
. 3 d _ _ _ , 2 0 0 8 T e x . C r i m . Ap p . LE X IS 761, at *13 (Te x . Crim. App. 2008) (citi n g W atson , 204 S.W. 3d

a t 41 4- 17 ). We w ill no t r e ve rs e
a ca se on a f

actua l s u ff

i ci en cy challeng e unless we can sa y , with some objective ba sis in the
rec ord, that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the ve rdict. W atson , 204 S.W .3d at 417.

AN AL YSI S

I n h is s ole po int

of e rr or , M ue lle r a sse rt s th a t th e e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in his conviction. He c laims that “[t] he intent of [Mueller] was to le ave [t he room] and no actions of [Mueller] can show there was suff icient evidenc e” that he “intende d to cause harm” to Hislop. A p e r s o nc o m m i t s t h e o f f e n s e o f a s s a u l tw i t hb o d i l y i n

j u r y i f h e i n t e n t i o n a l l y, knowing ly , or rec klessly cause s bodily injury to a nother. SeeTex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.01(a) (1). “B odily injury ” mea

ns phy sical pain, illness, or any impairment of phy s i ca l co n d i tion. Id
. § 1.07(a) (8) ( West S upp. 2007).

Hislop testified that Mueller “ came toward” him, “put his whole arm into” Hislop’s
c he st, and sc ratc he d H isl op ’s fa c e , “ may be a bo ut a ha lf to 1 inc h be low ” Hi slo p’ s ey e . H isl op a lso te sti fi e d th a t Mu e lle r’ s a c tio ns we re de lib e rate , “ [b]e c a us e he c a me , h e ha d h is f

ir st h and ou t li ke thi s and then he went up like that.” H islop further testified that Mueller caused him phy sical pain a nd g ave him “a

pretty g ood littl e r ed gas h up under my ey e that I had to see k medical tre atment for.”6

Viewingthis evidence in the light most favor able to the ve rdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fa c t c ou ld f

ind , b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t, t

hat M uel ler in te nti on a lly , k no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y
cause d Hislop bodily injury
. Thus, the evidence is leg ally sufficie nt to support Mueller’ s conviction.

When consideringthe evidenc e in a neutra l light, we also conc lude that the evide nce is factua lly

s ufficie nt to support Mueller’s convic tion. Mueller denied a ssaulting Hislop. He te sti fi e d th a t he wa s jus t tr ying to le ave the ro om, and that, if he did so me ho w str ike Hi slo p w ithhis arm, it was a s “a de fensive g esture” in response to Hislop and Stewa rt “c omin g at ” him . Mueller also testified that he did not intend to cause Hislop any phy sical pain. How ever , the trial cour t, as finder of fac t, was entitled to dis believe Mue ller’s a ccount of what tra nspired and f

ind Hislop’s descr iption of the incident more c redible. We c annot say , with some objective ba sis in the recor d, that th e g re a t w e ig ht a

nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e c on tr a dic ts t he tr ia l c ourt ’s ve rd ic t. We overrule Mueller’ s sole point of err or.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 14, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh