PDR # PD-1030-15

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

=============================================== 

## PRESTON JOE SHARPNACK ,

Petitioner

v. 

## THE STATE OF TEXAS ,

Appellee

=============================================== Petitioner’s Petition for Discretionary Review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals from his appeal to the Third District Court of Appeals in 03-13-00689-CR

===============================================

Submitted by
Law Office of Alexander L. Calhoun 4301 W. William Cannon Dr., Ste. B-150 # 260 Austin, Texas 78749 tele: 512/ 731 - 3159 fax: 512/ 233- 5946 Email: alcalhoun@earthlink.net Oral Argument is Requested PD-1030-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/8/2015 3:15:33 PM Accepted 9/10/2015 3:44:23 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTa bl e o f Co ntents

Tab le o f Co n t en t s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

In d ex o f Au t h ori ti es

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

St at em en t Reg ard i n g Oral Arg u m en t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

St at em en t o f t he Cas e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

St at em en t o f Pro ced u ral Hi s t ory

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Qu es t i o n Pres en t ed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Reas o n fo r Rev i ew..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Gro un d fo r Rev i ew (Res t at ed ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. Fact s i n Su p p o rt o f Gran t i n g t h is Pet i t i o n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Arg u m en t an d Au t h ori t i es

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Co n cl u s i o n an d Pray er.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

Cert i fi cat e o f Co m

p l i an ce.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Ap p en d ix A.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

iiI ndex o f Autho ri ti es

Cas es :
Br i s t er v. S t a t e , 4 4 9 S.W .3 d 4 90 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 2 0 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Dr i ch a s v. S ta te , 1 7 5 S.W .3 d 7 9 5 (Tex .Cr.Ap p .2 00 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

En r iq u ez v. S t a te , 8 2 6 S.W .2 d 1 9 1 (Tex .Ap p . - El Pas o 1 9 92 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Es co b a r v. S t a t e , 7 99 S.W .2 d 5 0 2 (Tex . Ap p . - Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 9 9 0 ).

. . . . . . . . . . 7

Fr a nkl in v. S t a t e , 6 0 6 S.W .2 d 8 1 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 1 9 7 8 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 1 2

Ken ned y v. S t a t e , 4 02 S.W .3 d 7 9 6 (Tex . Ap p

. — Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 1 3).

. . . . . . 9, 1 0 , 1 1

La n e v. S t a t e , 1 51 S.W .3 d 1 8 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Lo z an o v. S t at e , 8 6 0 S.W

. 2 d 1 5 2 (Tex .Ap p . - Au s t i n 1 9 9 3 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Pa t t er s o n v. S t a t e , 7 6 9 S.W .2 d 9 3 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 1 9 8 9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pa r ri s v. S t a t e , 7 5 7 S.W .2 d 8 4 2 (Tex .Ap p .- Dal l as 1 98 8 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ri ce v. S t a t e , 7 7 1 S.W .2 d 5 9 9 (Tex .Ap p . - Ho us . [1 4 t h Di s t .] 1 9 8 9 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . 6

S h a r pn a ck v. S t a t e , 0 3 - 1 3 - 0 0 68 9 - CR (Tex .Ap p .- Au s t i n 2 0 1 5 ).

. . . . . 1 , 6 , 9

S h o ckl ey v. S t a t e , 7 4 7 S.W .2 d 4 7 0 (Tex

. Ap p . - Ho u s . [1 s t Di s t .] 1 9 88 ) .

. . . . . . . . 7

S t a n u l v. S t a t e, 8 7 0 S.W .2 d 3 2 9 (Tex .Ap p . — Au s t i n 1 9 9 4).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Ter r y v. S t a t e , 6 7 2 S.W .2 d 2 3 6 (Tex .Ap p

. -W aco 1 9 83 ) ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Th o ma s v. S t at e , 8 2 1 S.W .2 d 6 1 6 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 1 9 9 1).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Tu r ner v. S t a t e , 6 6 4 S.W .2 d 8 6 (Tex

. Cr.Ap p . 1 9 8 3) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 1 2

iiiTyr a v. S ta t e , 8 9 7 S.W .2 d 79 6 (Tex .Cr.Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 8

St at u t es an d Ru l es :
Tex

. Pen al Co d e § 1 .0 7 (a)(1 7 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Tex

. Pen al Co d e § 2 2 .0 1 (a)(1 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tex

. Pen al Co d e § 2 2 .0 2 (a)(2 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Tex

. R.Ap p .Pro . Ru l e 6 6 .3 ( b ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Tex

. R.Ap p .Pro . Ru l e 6 6 .3 ( c ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ivSta tem ent Reg a rdi ng Ora l Arg um ent

Th i s cas e i n v o lv es a p o t en t i al l y nu an ced i s s u e o f l aw i n wh i ch o ral arg u m en t

m ay b e b en efi ci al t o t h i s Co u rt t o cl ari fy t he i ss u es i n v o lv ed

.

vTO THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS:

COM ES NOW , Pet i t io n er, PRESTON J OE SHARPNACK, wh o, b y an d

t h ro u g h h i s u n d e r s i g n ed at t o rn ey o f reco rd , p res en ts t h is Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary
Rev iew p u rs u an t t o Tex .R.Ap p.Pro . Ru l e 6 6 .1 et s eq

. , an d wo u l d s h ow as fo l l o ws :
Sta tem ent o f the Ca s e
Pet i t i o ner was ch arg ed wi t h Ag g rav at ed As sau l t wi t h a Dead l y W eap o n

. Tex

. Pen al Co de § 2 2

. 0 2 (a)(2 ), 2 2 .0 1 (a)(1 ). [Cl erk ’s Reco rd (h erei naft er “ C.R." ):

4 - 5 ]

. Th e ju ry co nv i ct ed Ap p el l an t o n t h e c h a r g e d o ffen s e. [C.R.: 5 8 ]

. Th e

p u n i s h m en t p h as e was h el d t o t h e co u rt , wh i ch as s es s ed an ag reed u p on s en t en ce o f

1 0 y ears

. [C.R.: 6 6 ]

. Th e Co u rt al s o en t e r ed an affi rm at i ve fi n d in g o f a d ead l y

weap o n . [C.R.: 6 6] . Ap p el l an t t i m el y fi l ed a n ot i ce o f ap p eal . [C.R.: 8 2 - 8 3 ]

. Sta tem ent o f Pro cedura l Hi s to ry
Th e Th i rd Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s affi rm ed Pet i t i o n er’ s co n v i ct i o n.
S h a r pn a ck v. S t a te , 0 3 - 1 3- 0 0 6 8 9 - CR (Tex .Ap p.- Au s ti n 2 01 5 ). Pet i t i o n er d id

n o t fi l e a Mo t i o n fo r Reh eari n g

. Fo l l o wi n g a g ran t o f an ex t en s i o n t o fi l e t h e Pet i t i o n
fo r Di s cret i o n ary

Rev i ew, t h i s Pet i t i o n i s d ue b y Sep t em b er 9 , 2 0 1 5

. Ques ti o n Pres ented

W H E T H E R T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS ’ D E C I S I O N R E G A R D I N G T H E S U F F I C I E N C Y O F T H E E V I D E N C E T O P R O V E P E T I T I O N E R U S E D H I S H A N D S A S D E A D LY W E A P O N S E R R O N E O U S LY R E J E C T E D A M E N S R E A

1R E Q U IR E M E N T T O T H E U S E O F A D E A D LY W E A P O N A N D I M P O S E D A N

U N R E A S O N A B LY A T T E N U A T E D T H E O R Y O F S T R IC T L I A B I LI T Y F O R I N J U R Y

. Rea s o ns fo r Rev i ew
1

. Rev i ew i s ap pro p ri at e an d n eces s ary b ecau se t he Th ird Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h as ad dres s ed an i m p o rt an t i s s u e of t h e l aw wh i ch co nfl i ct s wi t h p reced en t
b y t h i s Co u rt an d o t h er co u rt s o f ap peal s. Tex .R.Ap p .Pro . Ru le 6 6 .3 ( c ).

2

. In t h e al t ern at i ve, t o t h e ex t en t t h at t h e p reci s e q u es t i o n b efo re t h i s Co u rt i s n ot
cl earl y s et t l ed , th e Co urt o f Ap p eal s h as d eci d ed a q u es t i o n o f l aw wh i c h h a s n ot
b een , b ut s h ou ld b e s et t l ed b y t h i s Co u rt . Tex .R.Ap p .Pro . Ru le 6 6 .3 ( b ).

Gro und fo r Rev iew (Res ta ted)

T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS ’ D E C I S I O N U P H O LD I N G T H E S U F F I C I E N C Y O F T H E E V ID E N C E T O P R O V E P E T IT IO N E R U S E D H IS H A N D S A S D E A D LY W E A P O N S E R R O N E O U S LY R E J E C T E D A M E N S R E A R E Q U I R EM EN T TO TH E U S E O F A D E A D LY W E A P O N A N D I M P O S E D A N U N R E A S O N A B LY A T T E N U A T E D T H E O R Y O F S T R I C T L I A B I LI T Y F O R I N J U R Y

.

A. Fa cts i n Suppo rt o f Gra nti ng thi s Peti ti o n
Th e i n s t an t cas e i n v o l v es a ch al l en ge t o t h e su ffi ci e n c y o f t he ev i d en ce; t h e
fact s b el ow are s et o u t i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct

. Th e d eced en t, M at t h ew Cas ey , an d h i s fri en d , M i ch ael Cam p bel l w e r e str ol l i n g
i n 6 t h St reet en t ert ai n m en t d i s t ri ct o f Au s ti n in t h e earl y m o rn i n g ho u rs of Sep t em b er

23 , 2 0 1 2, Lab or D ay week en d

. [V o l

. 6 Rep o rt er’ s Reco rd (h erei n aft er “ R.R.”): 8 3

-

8 4 ]

. Bo t h were hi gh l y i n t o x icat e d

. [Vo l

. 5 R.R.: 3 8, 6 6 , 1 3 5; 6 R.R.: 8 7 - 8 8,

1 1 6 , 1 4 1 ]

. Cas ey g o t i n t o a v erb al al t ercat i o n w i t h P e t i t i o n er an d h i s co m p an i o n,
Ren ee J o n es

. [5 R.R.: 10 4 - 1 06 , 1 4 8 1 5 3, 1 54 - 1 7 2; 6 R.R.: 8 8 , 9 0 - 9 2 , 1 3 2 - 1 3 3;

St at e’ s Ex h i b i t 2 5 ]

. Pet i t i o ner ab ru pt l y s tru ck Cas ey i n t he face wi th hi s fi s t , cau s i n g
Cas ey t o l o s e co n s ci o u s n es s . Cas ey co l l ap s ed t o t h e s i d ewal k , s t ri k i n g h is h ead . [5

R.R.: 8 9 - 9 0 , 94 , 10 0 , 1 0 5, 1 07 , 1 1 3 - 1 14 , 1 3 3 - 1 3 4 ]

. Cas ey reg ai n ed o n l y s em i

co n sci o u s n es s aft er t h e fal l an d was t ran s po rt ed t o a l o cal h o s p i t al t o recei v e t rau m a

care. [5 R.R.: 9 6 , 9 7 , 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 , 1 1 8, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 ; 6 R

. R

. : 9 4 , 9 7 , 1 3 4 ]. He

ev en tu al l y recei v ed n eu ro -s urg ery

. [5 R.R.: 6 6 - 67 , 8 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 ; 6 R.R.: 1 1 0 - 1 1 6;

7 R.R.: 4 5 - 4 8 ]

. He ev en t u al ly d i ed as a res u l t o f th e h ead i n ju ri es he recei ved fro m
h i t t i n g h i s s k u ll i n t h e fal l. [7 R.R.: 4 8 - 4 9] .]

. Th e m ed i cal t es t i m o n y refl ect ed t h at Cas ey recei ved a fract u red s k u l l , a

s u b d ural h em at o m a an d cereb ral ed em a as a res u l t o f t h e i m pact o f h i s h ead o n t h e

s i dewal k

. [6 R.R.: 1 1 3 - 1 2 0]

. Al t h o u g h n eu ro -s u rg ery rem ov ed th e s u b d u ral

h aem at o m a, Cas ey co n ti n u ed t o ex p eri en ce p o st -o p erat iv e swel l in g o f t h e b rai n,
wh i ch u l t i m at el y p ro v ed t o be fat al

. [7 R.R.: 4 7 - 4 9]

. Cas ey al s o h ad a l acerat i o n

o n hi s left ear, co n s is t en t wi t h bei n g p u n ch ed i n t h e face, b u t t he at t en d i n g p h y s i ci an

co n cl u d ed t h at t he i n

ju ry wo u l d n o t h av e b een l i fe - t h reat en i n g

. [6 R.R.: 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 ]

.

3Th e au t op s y refl ect ed Cas ey h ad recei ved a sk u l l fract u re, co n t u si o n s o n t h e

b rai n an d a s u b d u ral h em at o m a, co n s i s ten t w i t h h av i n g b een s tru ck , fal l i n g b ack an d

s t ri k i n g h i s h ead on t h e s i d ewal k

. [7 R.R.: 2 2 - 24 , 27 - 29 ]

. Th e b rai n i n ju ry was

t h e p ri m ary i n

ju ry

. [7 R.R.: 3 0 ]

. In res p o n s e t o t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s l ead i n g qu es t i o n , t h e
d ep ut y m ed i cal ex am i n er tes ti fi ed t h at a han d co u l d b e a d ead l y weap on in si t u at i o n s , l i ke t h e pres en t , wh ere i t cau s ed a p ers o n t o fal l an d s t ri k e h i s h ead

. [7 R.R.: 3 2 - 3 4 ]

. Sh e s u b s eq u en t l y q u al i fi ed t h at t h e p u n ch i n an d o f it s el f was n o t s u ffi ci en t t o h av e

c a u s ed t h e b rai n i n

ju ri es

. [7 R.R.: 4 0 - 4 1 ]

. Rat h er, i t d eat h was cau s ed b u b l u n t
fo rce t rau m a t o t h e b ack o f Cas ey ’ s h ead as a res u l t o f h is s tri k i ng t h e s i dewal k

. [7

R.R.: 3 7 , 4 0 ]

. Th e n eu ro s u rg eo n wh o p erfo rm ed n eu ro s u rg ery o n Cas ey , Dr. Al ex V al ad ka,

t es t i fi ed t h e s ub d u ral hem at o m a w a s c o n si s t en t wi th b ei ng s t ru ck , fal l i n g t o t h e

g ro u nd , s t ri k i n g o n e’ s h ead o n t h e s i d ewal k

. [7 R.R.: 5 0 ]

. Dr. Val ad k a ag reed t h at

a p ers o n ’ s h an d co u ld h av e “ cau s ed ” t h e i n j u ry b y “ h it [t i n g ] s o m eo ne wi t h s u ch fo rce

t h at t h ey wo u l d fal l an d hi t t h ei r h ead .” [7 R.R.: 5 0 ]

. Bu t Dr. Val ad k a cl ari fi ed t h at
i t w a s t h e e ffect o f s tri k in g on e’ s h ead on t h e gro u n d , an d n o t th e fal l i t s el f, wh i ch

res u l ted i n Cas ey ’ s b rai n i n ju ry . [7 R.R.: 5 0 - 5 1]

. Th e l ead d et ect i ve o n t h e cas e t es t i fi ed t h at as a g en eral m at ter a h an d co u ld
b e us e d as a d ead l y w eap o n , bu t o n e o f t h e o ffi cer’ s wh o res po n d ed t o t h e i n i t i al

4s cen e o f th e as s au l t ad m i tt ed t h at he h ad n ev er s een an i nd i v i d u al d i e fro m a s i n g l e

p u n ch t o t h e h ead

. [5 R.R.: 6 4, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 ]

. Th e j u ry co n vi ct ed Pet i t i o n er o f t h e ch arg ed o ffen s e, Ag g rav at ed As s au l t wi th
a Dead l y W eap o n . [9 R.R.: 5 ]

. B. Arg um ent a nd Autho ri ty
i

. Cas e p reced en t o n wh at co n s t i t u t es a d ead l y weap o n , t h o u g h wh i l e b ro ad , i s n o t u nl im i t ed an d en tai l s an u n derl y i n g men s r ea req u i rem en t ap p l y i n g t o t h e s p eci fi c u s e o f t he o b j ect as a d ea d l y weap o n

. Th i s Co u r t i s p res en t ed wi t h t h e q u es ti o n of wh et h er t h e A u s t i n Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h as ad o pt ed an erro n eo u s i n t erp ret at i o n o f t h e u se o f a d ead l y weap o n , o n e
wh i ch d i s reg ard s t h e men s rea req u irem e n t t o d ead l y weap o n ju ri s pru d en ce an d
wh i ch s u b s t it u t es a s tri ct l i ab i l it y ap p ro ach

. Pet i t i o ner s tru ck Cas ey o n e t i m e i n h i s face wi th h i s f i s t

. Cas ey , w h o was
h eav il y in t o x i cat ed , pas s ed ou t wi t h th e b l o w an d cru m p led t o t h e s t reet

. Pet i t i o n er’ s

p u n ch cau s ed a l acerat i o n t o h i s ear, bu t was n o t l i fe th reat en i ng

. In fal l in g t o t h e

g ro u nd , h o wev er, Cas ey recei v ed a s k u l l fract ure an d acco m pan y i n g b l eed i n g i n t h e
b r a i n f r o m t h e im

p act wi t h t h e p av em en t

. He d i ed o f t h e i n ju ri es recei v ed b y t h a t
i m p act

. No t es t i m o n y refl ect ed Pet i t i o n er’ s s i n g l e b l ow act u al ly cau s ed th e i n ju ri es
wh i ch p ro v ed fat al

.

5Des p i t e t h e ab sen ce o f ev i d en ce to d em o n s t rat e Pet i ti o ner’ s i n t en t t o cau s e

s eri ou s i n j u r i e s or d eat h , th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h el d t h e ev i den ce was su ffi ci en t to

u p h o l d t h e v erd i ct t h at h e had u s ed h i s h an d s as d ead l y weap o n s, es s en t i al l y b ecau s e
b y s t ri k in g t h e deced en t , h e i n i t i at ed a ch ai n o f ev en t i n wh i ch t h e d eced en t u l t i m at el y
d i ed

. S ee S h a r p n a ck v. S t a t e, 0 3 -1 3 -0 0 6 89 -CR, s l i p o p

. at 4 - 6 (Tex .Ap p.

– Au s t in

2 0 1 5 ).

Th e Tex as Pen al Co d e d efi n es a “ d ead l y weap o n ” as ei t h er: (A) a fi rearm o r an y t h i n g m an i fes t l y d es ig ned , m ad e, o r ad ap t ed fo r th e p u rp o s e o f i n fl i ct i n g d eat h o r s eri o u s b o d il y i n ju ry ; o r (B) an y t h i n g t h at i n t h e m an n er o f i t s u s e o r i n ten d ed u se i s cap ab l e o f
cau s in g d eat h o r s eri o u s b o d i l y i n ju ry

. Tex

. Pen al Co d e § 1 .0 7 (a)(1 7 ).

Th i s Co u rt an d t h e l o wer co u rt s h av e u p h el d t h e fi n d i n g s o n n u m ero u s o b ject

as a d ead l y weap o n s w h e n s p e ci fi cal l y u s ed i n a m an n er as a weap o n. Th o ma s v.
S t a t e , 8 2 1 S.W .2 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 0 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 1 9 9 1 ); Tyr a v. S t a t e , 8 9 7 S.W .2 d 7 9 6 ,7 9 8

- 7 9 9 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 1 9 9 5 ); S t an u l v. St a t e, 8 7 0 S.W .2 d 3 2 9 (Tex

. A p p

. — Au s t in

1 9 9 4 )(d e f en dan t u s ed fl o o r as d ead l y weap o n b y s t ri k i n g v i ct i m 's h ead ag ai n s t i t );

Lo z an o v. S t a t e , 8 6 0 S.W .2 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 6 (Tex .Ap p

. - Au st i n 1 9 93 ) (l i g h t er s peci fi cal l y

u s ed t o i g n it e fi re w h ich b u rn ed b u i ld i n g); Ri ce v. S t a t e , 7 7 1 S.W .2 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 0 - 6 0 1 (Tex .Ap p

. - Ho u s

. [1 4 t h D i s t .] 1 9 8 9 ) (g as o l in e p o u red o v er v i ct im an d i g n i t ed );

6En r iq u ez v. S t a t e , 8 2 6 S.W .2 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 - 1 9 3 (Tex .Ap p

. - El Pas o 19 9 2 ) (s o ft d ri n k

b o t t l e u s ed t o s t ri k e co m p l ai n an t ); Es co b ar v

. S t a t e , 7 99 S.W .2 d 5 02 , 5 0 7 (Tex

. Ap p

. - Co rp u s Ch ri st i 19 9 0 ) (b as eb al l b at us ed t o b l u dg eo n co m p lai n an t ); S

h o ckl ey

v. St a t e , 7 4 7 S.W .2 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 4 (Tex .Ap p

. - Ho u s. [1 s t Di s t .] 19 8 8 ) (fab ri c o r h an d,
ei t h er of w h i ch co u ld b e u s ed t o s t ran gl e); a n d , Ter r y v. S t at e , 6 7 2 S.W .2 d 2 3 6 , 2 3 8

- 2 40 (Tex .Ap p .-W aco 1 98 3 ) (p l as t i c b ag p l aced o v er v i ct im 's h ead t o su ffo cat e h er).

Th es e cas es refl ect no t s i m p l y t h e v ari ab il i ty o f o t h erwi s e i n no cu o u s o bject s i n t h ei r

cap ab i l i ty o f b ei ng u s ed as w eap o n s

. Th ey are al s o ti ed b y a co m m o n t h em e t h at t h e

as s ai lan t co n s ci o u s l y u t i li zed t h em i n a s p eci fi c m an ner o f i n fl i ct i n g a s peci fi c res u l t

. Th ere i s an i m

p li ed men s r ea el em en t t o t h e u se o f t h e i n n o cu ou s o bject s as d ead l y

weap o n s

. Pa t t er

s on v. S t a t e , 7 6 9 S.W .2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 1 (Tex .Cr.Ap p. 1 9 89 ) ( " ’ u s ed

. . .

a d ead ly weap o n ’ du ri n g t h e co m m i s s i on o f t he o ffen s e m ean s t h at th e d ead l y weap o n

was em p l o y ed o r u t i l i zed i n o rd er t o a c h i ev e i t s p u rp o s e.”). See a l so , Fr an kl i n v.
S t a t e , 60 6 S.W .2 d 8 1 8 , 8 23 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 19 7 8 ) (“ Th e ev i d en ce i n t h e i ns t a n t c a s e
d o es n o t s h o w t h at th e kn i fe u s ed i s a d ead l y weap on p er s e, b ut t he ev i d en ce cl earl y

es t ab l i s h es t hat i t was u s ed i n a ma n n er ca l cu l a t ed t o p r o d u ce dea t h .”) (e m

p h as i s
ad d ed ). Co mp a r e P a r r i s v. St a t e , 7 5 7 S.W .2 d 8 42 , 8 4 7 (Tex .Ap p.- Dal l as 1 9 8 8 ) ( h o l d i n g ev i den ce i n s u ffi ci en t t o p ro v e s id ewal k was us ed as a d ead l y w eap o n , “ t h ere
b ei n g n o s h o w i ng o f pu r p os ef u l u s e o f th e s i d ewal k t o i n fl i ct i n j u ry

. ”) (em

p h as i s

7ad d ed ).

Th i s Co urt h as al s o u ph el d d ead l y weap o n fi n di n g s t o o bject s w h i ch h av e n ot
b een u s ed wi t h t h e sp eci fi c i nt en t t o u t i l i ze t h em as weap on s , e.g

. , au to m o b i l es d ri v en
b y i n to x i cat ed d ri v ers , Tyr a , su p r a ; a n d , B r is t er v. S t a t e , 4 4 9 S.W .3 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 4 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 2 0 1 4 ), b u t an al y s i s o f s u ch au t om o b i l e c a s e s d o n o t refl ect an

ex cep t i o n t o t h e ru l e s o m u ch as reco gn i ze an u n d erl y i n g m en s r ea g i ven t h at t h e

o p erat i o n o f a m

u l t i -t o n o bject at s i g n i fi can t s p eed , o n a hi g hway , wh il e i n t o x i cat ed

i m p l i es reck l es s n es s

. S

ee B r i st er , 4 4 9 S.W .3 d at 4 9 4 (ci t i n g Dr ich a s v. S t a t e , 1 7 5

S.W .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7-9 8 (Tex .Cr.Ap p .2 0 0 5 )).

In d eed , h an d s can b e us ed as d ead l y weap o n s wh en p u rp o s efu l l y u s ed i n a

m an n er l i k el y t o res ul t in deat h or s eri o u s b o di l y i n ju ry

. Tu r n er v. S t a t e , 66 4 S.W .2 d

8 6 , 9 0 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 1 9 8 3 ) (n o t i n g t h at wh i l e h an d s an d feet are n ot ty p i cal l y d ead l y

weap o n s , t h ey m ay b eco m e s o wh en “ ca l cu la t ed to i n fl i ct s eri o u s b o di l y i n j u ry

. . .” (Em p h as i s ad d ed ); a n d , La n e v. S t a t e , 1 51 S.W .3 d 1 8 8 , 19 2 (Tex .Cr.Ap p

. 2 0 0 4 ) (rep eat ed cl o sed fi s t s t ri k es t o h ead an d t h en k i ck i n g t o ch es t an d ab d o m en su ffi ci en t

t o d em o n s t rat e u s e as d ead l y weap o n ).

i i

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s erred i n rel y in g u p o n t h e Fo rt W o rt h Co u rt o f Ap p eal ’ s Deci s i o n i n Ken n ed y v. S t a t e , 4 02 S.W .3 d 7 9 6 (Tex

. Ap p

. — Fo rt W o rt h 2 0 1 3 , p et

. ref’ d ) wh i ch ap p l i ed an at t en u at ed
an d s t ri ct l i ab il i t y ap p ro ach t o wh en a h an d co ns t i t u t es a d ead l y weap o n

.

8Th e Au s t i n Co u rt o f Ap p eal s d i s reg ard ed t h e men s rea req ui rem en t i n h eren t

i n “ d ead l y weap o n s ” ju ri s p r u d en ce, i n s t ead , s u bs t i t u t i n g s ub s ti t ut ed an at t en u at ed

“ s t ri ct li ab il i t y ” cau s al ch ai n b et ween t he o b ject ’ s us e

– i n t h i s cas e, P e t i t i o n er’ s

s i ng l e p u n ch – an d t h e d eced en t ’ s u l t im at e d eat h fro m t h e brai n h em o rrh ag e.
S h a r pn a ck , s li p o p. at 4 -6

. In u ph o l d in g t he fi n d i n g t h at Pet i t i o n er’ s h an d s co n s ti t u t ed d ead ly weap o n s ,
t h e Au s ti n Co u rt of Ap p eal s rel i ed pri m ari l y o n t h e Fo rt W ort h Co urt o f Ap p eal s ’
d i v i d ed p an el d eci s i o n in Ken n ed y v. S t a te , 4 0 2 S.W .3 d 7 9 6 (Tex

. Ap p.— Fo rt W o rt h

2 0 1 3 , p et . ref’ d).

In Ken n ed

y , an Ag g rav at ed Ro b b ery cas e, t h e d efen d an t , wh i l e carry i n g o u t a

s t o l e n t el ev i s i on fro m W al m art , co l l i d ed wi t h an d k no ck ed o v er a s t o re em p l o y ee,
wh o su ffered a s k u l l fract ure an d b l eed i n g aft er h i t t i n g h is h ead o n t h e co n cret e fl o o r.
Id ., at 7 9 8, 8 01

. Un b ek no wn s t t o Ken n ed y , th e em p l o y ee h ad a s eri o u s p re-ex i s t i n g
l i ver d i s eas e, w hi ch ren d ered h i m p r o n e to ex ces s iv e b l eed i n g an d h e d i ed fro m

co m p l icat i o n s fro m h i s i n

j u r i e s a few d ay s l at er. Id

. , at 7 9 8 , 8 01

. M ed i cal

t es t i m o ny refl ect ed t h at t h e em p l o y ees i n ju ri es d i d n o t s i g n i fi can t l y co n tri b ut e t o h i s
d eat h

. . . b u t i n l i g h t o f h i s l at e-s t ag e l i v er d i s eas e, t h e p us h or s t ri k e fro m Ap p el l an t

t h at l ed t o hi s i n

j u ri es was cap ab l e o f cau s i n g d eat h or s eri ou s b o d i l y i n ju ry .” He

“ was at a s i g n ifi can t ri s k f o r i n t ern al b l eed i n g , wh i ch co u l d hav e been p reci p i t at ed

9fro m s o m et h i n g as s i m p l e as s h ak i n g hi s h ead , l o w e r i n g h i s h ead t o a p i l l o w, o r

p l o p p i n g d o wn i n t o a ch ai r.” Id
., at 8 0 1

. Bas ed o n t h i s , t h e Fo rt W o rt h Co u r t o f A p p eal s co n cl u ded t h at K en n ed y , by

u s i n g h is h an d s t o p u s h away t h e em p l o y ee u s ed h i s h an d s as d ead l y w eap o n s wh ere

t h e em p l o y ee fel l “ do wn t o a co n cret e fl o or,

. . . h e h i t h i s head , b ecam e d i s o ri en t ed ,

an d h ad t o g o t o t h e h o s p i t al , wh ere h e d i ed a few d ay s l at er.” Id

. , at 8 0 2

. Ken n ed y ’ s at t en u at ed ho l d i n g di d n o t pas s u n ch al l en g ed , h o wev er. W ri t i n g
i n di s s en t , J u s t i ce Dau p hi no t , w h o fau lt ed t h e Pan el fo r ex ten d i n g t h e l aw reg ard i n g

t h e u s e o f d ead l y

weap o ns t o ex t rem es wi th o u t an acco m p an y i n g men s r ea :

. . . n o t h i n g ex p l ai ns h o w Ap p el l an t was su p p o s ed t o k n ow t h at u s i n g h i s h an d t o p u s h h im s el f away fro m t h e co m p l ai n an t was t u r n i n g h i s h a nd i n t o a d ead l y weap o n i n t h e m an n er o f i t s u s e. No t h i ng i n t h e reco rd refl ect s an y i n t en t t o cau s e d eat h o r s eri o u s bo d il y i n ju ry

. In d eed , t h e c o m p lai n an t's fal l res u l t ed i n d eat h on l y b ecau s e o f h i s s eri o us l y co m p ro m is ed l i v er.

. . . Fro m t h e fi rs t d ay o f law s ch oo l , w e l earn th at th ere m u s t b e n ot on l y th e act u s reu s , bu t al s o t h e m en s rea. W e l earn t h at s t a t u t es m u s t be
s u ffi ci en t l y s p eci fi c t o p u t t h e av erag e p ers o n o n n o t i ce o f t h e p ro h i b i ted
co n d u ct

. Is t he req ui rem en t o f m en s rea real l y b ec o m in g a rel i c o f th e p as t s o t hat o u r o ffen s es are s t ri ct l i ab i l i t y cri m es req u iri n g no i n t en t o r ev en n eg l i g en ce? Are o u r o ffen s es real l y b eco m i n g s o v ag u e t h at t h ey are a q u es t io n o f h o w far t h e l aw can b e s t ret ch ed ?
Id ., at 8 0 4

.

10J u s t ice D au p hi n o t co n cl u d ed t h at fed eral an d s t at e co n s ti t ut i o n al req ui rem en t s

n ece s s i t a t e d p ro o f o f m en s rea wh en u si n g a d ead ly weap o n : “ fed eral an d s t at e

c o n s t i t u t io n s req u i re p ro o f b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t t hat a pers o n fo u n d t o h a v e

u s ed o r ex h i b i t ed a d ead ly weap o n i n t he co m m is s i o n o f an o ffen s e di d so kn o wi n g l y

o r s h o ul d h a ve kn own th at h e was d o i n g s o ,” Id

. , at 8 0 5 (em p h as i s ad d ed ).

Ken n ed y p ro v id es an u n s o u n d b as i s fo r t h e Co urt ’ s co n cl u s i o n in Pet i t i o n er’ s

o wn cas e. Fo r on e, i t was a d iv i d ed p an el d eci s i o n i n wh i ch t h e d is sen t cl ari fi ed i t s
k ey fai l i n g : th e ap p el l at e co u rt d i s reg ard ed t h e u n d erl y in g men s r ea req ui rem en t to

a fi n d i n g t hat a n o b

ject

– h an d s – co n st i t u t ed a dead l y weap o n u n d er t he s p eci fi c
ci rcu m s t an ces i n wh i ch t h ey w ere u sed

. Th ere h ad b een n o ev id en ce t o d em o n s t rat e

t h e d efen d an t i n Ken n ed

y h ad ei t h er i nt en d ed , o r s h o u l d h av e b een aware of th e act u al

p o s s i b i l i ty t h at sh o vi n g t h e d eced en t wo u ld l i k el y res u l t i n s eri o u s i n ju r y o r d eat h.

Fu rt h er, th e ap pel l at e co u rt ad o p t ed an u n reas o n ab l y at t en u at ed cau s al ch ai n t o l i n k

t h e act u al u s e o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s h an d s t o t h e u n i n ten d ed res u lt

. J u s t as i n Ken n ed

y , t h e Au s t i n Co u rt o f A p p eal s h as i s s u ed a d eci s i o n bas ed o n

s p eci o u s reas o n i n g

. Th e C o u r t h as ad o pt ed an at t en u at ed cau s al p ro ces s fro m
Pet i t io n er’ s s o l i t ary , n o n -fat al p u n ch t o t h e d eced en t ’ s un an ti ci p at ed d eat h fro m

co m p l icat i o n s cau s ed bu t b y h is s t ri k i n g h i s head o n t h e p av em en t

. In ap pl y i n g t h i s

s t r a i n e d cau s al ch ai n , t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s h as s up eri m p o sed a s t ri ct l i ab i l i t y

11ap p ro ach o v er t h e men s rea req u i rem en t fi rm l y es t ab l i s h ed by t h i s Co u rt an d ap p l i ed

b y t h e co u rt s o f ap peal s i n t h i s St at e. S ee e.g ., Tu rn er , 6 6 4 S.W .2 d a t 9 0 ; a n d , Fr a nkl in , 6 0 6 S.W .2 d at 8 2 3

. Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s , t hi s Co u rt sh o ul d g ran t t h i s pet i ti o n to co rrect t h e
Au s ti n Co u rt o f A p peal s d eci s i o n an d t o p ro v i d e ex p res s gu i d an ce o n t h e req u i rem en t

o f men s r ea t o t h e u s e o f i n n o cu o u s weap o n s as d ead l y weap o n s

. Co ncl us i o n a nd Pra yer
W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Pet i ti o n er res p ect fu l l y req u es t s

t h i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt t o g ran t t h i s p et i t io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew, p erm i t fu l l
b ri efi n g an d arg um en t o n t h is i s s u e, an d t o s u b s e q u e n tl y g ran t s u ch rel i ef t o wh i ch

Pet i t io n er m ay

b e en t i t l ed

. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed , Law Offi ce o f Al ex an d er L. Cal h o u n 4 3 01 W . W il l i am

Can n o n Dr., St e. B-1 5 0 # 2 6 0 Au st i n, TX 7 8 7 0 4 9 Tel e: 5 12 / 7 31 -3 1 5 9 Fax : 5 1 2 / 2 3 3 -5 49 6 Em ai l : al cal h o un @ eat h l i nk .n et

BY:

_ /s /

_ _ _ Al exa n d er L. Ca l h o u n

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ Al ex an der L. Cal h o u n St at e Bar No

. : 0 07 8 7 18 7

12CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

I hereb y cert ify t h at a c o p y o f th e ab o v e an d fo reg o i ng Pet i t i o n fo r
Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew w as s erv ed u p o n th e fo l l o wi n g p art i es o n Sep tem ber 1 0 , 2 0 1 5
b y Un i t ed St at es M ai l :
Trav i s Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey 's Offi ce P.O. Bo x 1 7 4 8 Au s ti n , TX 7 87 6 7

an d

St at e Pro s ecu t in g At t o rn ey P.O. Bo x 1 3 0 4 6 Cap it o l St at io n Au s ti n , Tex as 7 8 7 1 1

/ s / A lexa n d er L. Ca l h o un Al ex an d er L. Cal h ou n

13Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl i a nce

I h ereb y cert i fy t h at th e f o r e g o i n g Pet it i on fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew was

creat ed i n 1 4 p o i n t t y

p e, Ti m es New Ro m an fo n t , an d co n s i s t s o f 3 52 3 wo rd s

.

/ s / Al exa n d

er L. Ca l h o u n Al ex an der L. Cal h o u n

14Ap pen d i x A

Pr es t o n J o e Sha r p na ck v. St a te o f Tex a s , No

. 0 3 -1 3 -0 0 6 89 -CR (Tex .Ap p . –

Au s t i n , J u l y

9 , 2 0 1 5 )

15T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00689- CR

P rest on Joe Sharpn ack, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 13- 9001 64, H ONO RAB LE K AREN SAGE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found Preston J o e S h ar p n ack g uilty of ag g rava ted assault with a deadly

wea pon. The trial court assessed an ag ree d sentenc e of ten y ear s in prison. Sharpnac k contends that
the findi ng that he used his hand a s a dea dly wea pon was not supported by the evidence. We will
aff irm the judg ment.

Thoug h there is some disag ree ment about the nature and sequenc e of the events
that broug ht Sharpnac k into contac t with Matthew Casey on a downtown Austin s t re et s h ortly
afte r midnight on L abor Day , those differ ence s are ir re l ev an t to the issue prese nted to this Court

on appea l. Sharpnac k undisputedly punch ed C as ey o n t he left side of hi s jaw. Casey fell—some
witnesses said he appea

red to have been knocked unconscious immediately —and hit his head on the
sidewalk. He incurre d a subdural hematoma near the base of his skull, his brain swelled, and he died despite bra in surg ery

and tre atment.We will revie w the rec ord to deter mine whether , afte r viewing the evi d en ce in the light most fa

vorable to the verdic t, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found bey ond a re asonable
doubt t h at S h arpna ck’s hand was a deadly wea pon. See Brister v. State , 449 S.W .3d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). To be leg ally sufficie nt to sustain a deadly wea pon finding , the evidenc e

must demonstrate that: (1) the object meets the statutory definition of a dang erous wea pon; (2) the deadly wea

pon was used or exhibi ted during the transac tion from which the felony conviction was obtained; and (3) other people wer e put in actua l dang er. Drichas v. State , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 5, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Only the first ele ment is disputed in thi s appea l.
The definition of “dea dly wea pon” includes “any

thing that in the manner of its use or
intended use is capa

ble of causing death or serious bodily injury .” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a) (17)( B)

. A hand can be a deadly wea pon beca use a closed fi s t s t ri k i n g a person’ s head can cause serious phy sical injury even when the blow does not cause death. Lane v. State , 151 S.W .3d 1 8 8 , 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The State need not show that the hand actua lly cause d serious bodily injury so long a s it shows that the hand was c apable of causing serious bodily injury in the m anner of its

use. Jefferson v . State , 974 S.W .2d 887, 892 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). The f act that a n
item could be used as a deadly wea pon does not prove that it is a deadly wea pon—the statute

re quires proof that the object was used or intended to be used in a way that made it capa bl e o f causing serious bodily injury or death. Johnston v. State , 115 S.W .3d 761, 763 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003), aff’d , 145 S.W .3d 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 1

Sharpnac k asser

ts that prosec utors seeking a deadly -we apon finding must show that the 1 object “ca used a fata l wound.” See Parris v. State , 757 S.W .2d 842, 846 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, pet. ref ’d). That langua ge wa s used in the context of a murder case and is inapplicable to this
2Sharpnac k contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to show that he used or exhibi ted

his hand as a deadly wea

pon. He contends that he was defe nding his fema le companion with whom Casey had arg ued. He relies on medical expert testimony that the injury he direc tly inflicted by his 2 punch was not sufficie nt by itself to kill or cause serious bodily injury , and that Casey ’s intox ication
made him susceptible to the unconsciousness that cause d him to fall and hit his head on the sidewalk. Sharpnac k conclude s that his punch was too attenuate d from the fata l brain injury cause d by Casey ’s subsequent conta ct with the sidewa lk to classify his hand as a de adly

wea pon.
The neurosur g eon who trea ted Casey and the medical examiner bot h t est ified

reg arding how a hand can be a deadly wea pon. The neurosur g eon explained that both a punch and hitting one’s head o n a s i d ewalk can cause a blood clot in the brain. He testified that Casey ’s
condit i o n wa s consistent with being punched with such forc e that he fell and hit his head. The

neurosur g eon said that the blows c aused the blot clot a nd brain swelling that led to Casey ’s dea th.
The medical examiner testified that a blunt-forc e injury to the back of Casey ’s head cause d his death,
and she classified it as a homicide. She answe red “y es” when asked if a person’s hand is capa ble
of causing death or serious bodily injury in t h e m an n er of its use when the person strikes another
with his hand, causing the person struck to fall and hit his head on the paveme nt a nd suffe r a brain injury that leads to dea th.

ag g rava ted assault case

. See id

. at 843. No fata l wound must be shown under either the definition of “dea dly wea

p o n ” or the offe nse of ag g rava ted assault. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 1.07(a) (17)( B) (dea dly wea pon), 22.02(a ) (a g g rava ted assault).
The jury was char g ed on self-de fense and defe nse of others, but nece ssarily reje cted those 2 defe nses in finding Sharpnac k g uilty of ag g rava ted assault.

3The State also relies on testimony about the nature and eff ect of Sharpnac k’s punch specific ally

. A by stander char acte rized the punch as “for cef ul” and audible from about 100 fee t

awa y
. The witness testified that Casey was not in a defe nsive stance and appea red to be caug ht off

g uard by the punch. The witness said that Casey buckled and fell over immediately like a rag doll,

as if he was unconscious befor e he hit the g round. A para medic who trea ted the victim testified that Casey was unc onscious and blee ding f rom his left ea

r, with a bruise on his left jaw.

We will examine these fac ts and arg uments in light of g uiding authority from case s dealing with deadly -we apon finding s. See Kennedy v. State , 402 S.W .3d 796, 800 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2013, pet. ref’ d); Johnston , 115 S.W .3d at 764; Jefferson , 974 S.W .2d at 892.

The fac t tha t a

n object can be used to inflict ser ious bodily injury or dea th does not
make it a deadly wea

pon for all purposes. Johnston , 115 S.W .3d at 764. I n that case , the defe ndant
used a ciga re t t e to make one undisputedly “not serious” burn on a child’s hand. Id

. This Court
found that, even though a cig are tte could be use d to c ause burns that could result in se rious bodily injury or death, the evidenc e was insufficient to prove that J ohnston intended to use the cig are tte in

a manne r that could c ause se rious bodily injury or dea th. Id. Using the wea

pon in a manner that can cause serious injury or death is sufficie nt for
the deadly -we apon finding even if the victim doe s not suf fer such injuries. Jefferson , 974 S.W .2d

at 892. I n that case , this Court aff irmed a jury finding that the defe ndant used his hands as a deadly

wea pon when he punched the vi ct i m i n the face severa l times, causing the vi ctim’s nose t o swell,
his chee k to have numbness, his jaw to be sore, the are a around his ey e to bruise, and his ey es to
suffe r blurre d vision. Id

. The victim’s nose was not br oken and he did not lose his sense of smell

4or taste. Id. He did not lose consciousness and was “not subject to a substantial risk of death.” Id.

This Court never

theless found that the defe ndant’s hands wer e a deadly wea pon based on evidenc e
that the defe ndant punched the victim in the fac e sever al times and that a per s o n wh o is hit

repe atedly

in the fac e by

hands ca n suffe r ser ious bodily

injury such as br ain damag e, blindness, a
loss of the sense of

smell, and blurre d vision. Id.
A vi ctim’s susceptibi l i t y to injury can affe ct whether an object used ag ainst him is

a deadly wea

pon. Kennedy , 402 S.W .3d at 800. “[A] person who uses a wea pon to illega lly assault

an o t h er p er son must take his victim as he finds [hi m] .” Id

. I n that case , the defe ndant stealin g a
television set from a store pushed a store employ ee out of his way

. Id. at 801. The employ ee f ell,
hit his head on the concr ete floor, suffe red a skull fra cture and brain bruise, and died a few day s later.
Id. The employ ee was suffe ring from late-stag e liver disease that made him susceptible to extended bleeding , and the medical examiner testified that the employ ee’ s compromised condition meant that
the defe ndant’s push was capa ble of causing death or serious bodily injury

. Id. The court held that,
under these circ umstances, the evidenc e was sufficie nt to support a finding that the defe ndant used
his hands or the tele vision in a manner that wa s capa ble of c ausing serious bodily injury or dea th.
Whether Sharpnac k intended to kill Casey was n o t t he issue befor e the jury and it
is not the issue befor e this Court. The question is whether Sharpnac k’s hand was, in the manner of
its use or intended use, capa ble of causing serious bodily injury or death. See T ex

. Penal Code § 1.04(a) (17)( B)

. There was testimony that a hand is theore tically capa ble of causing serious bodily injury and death, and more specific ally t h at a punch to the fac e that cause s unconsciousness
and an unbroken fall t o t h e s i d ew al k can and did result in death in this case

. Thoug h there was

5testimony that Casey ang rily approa ched Sharpnac k and his companion threa tening to hit them, there

was also testimony that Casey was intox icated and unsuspecting

. I n the latter scena rio, Casey was perha ps more vulnera

ble to the full fo rc e o f Sharpnac k’s punch. Acc ording to one witness, the punch was power ful enoug h to be audible down a downtown block. Testimony showed that, when punched, Casey fell instantly and hit his hea d on the sidewa lk and later died from his injuries. On
this rec ord, we cannot say that no rational jury could have found that Sharpnac k’s hand was used or
intended to be use d in a manner capa ble of c ausing serious bodily injury and death.
We affir m the judgme nt.

J eff Rose, Chief J ustice

Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field

Affir med
Filed: Jul y

9, 2015
Do Not Publish

6