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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 085 -CR

M ar vin De wayne Da vis , 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. 4 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. 7282 05 , HO NORAB LE MI KE DENTO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Followin g a

b e n c h tr ia l, a

p p e ll an t M ar

v in D e w ay n e D a v is w a s f

o u n d g u il ty o f the offe nse of a ssault-family

violence. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.01(a) (1) ( West S upp. 2006). Punishm ent was a ssessed at one y ear of imprisonment and a f ine of $2,000. Impositi o n of the
se nte nc e wa s d e fe rr e d a

nd Da vis wa s pla c e d on c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . In tw o is su e s o n a pp e a l, Da vis c ha lle ng e s th e le g a l a

nd fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e . We a ff

ir m.
BACK GR OUND The trial c ourt hea

rd evide nce that, on the night of Marc h 1, 2006, T.N., a sixteeny ear -old g irl, observe d her ne ighbor , Be tty Buie , fig hting with Bu i e’s boy friend, D avis. T.N. testified that she hear d Buie scre aming outside. Acc ording to T .N., Buie was telling Da vis “[t] hat sh e w an t e d

t o l e a v e an d

h e w a s t e l l i n g h e r

n o y o u ’ r e n o tl e a v i n g . ” T
. N
. t e s t i f i e d t h a ta f t e r B uie insisted that she was lea

ving, she saw Da

vis push Buie a

nd “hit her in the f

ace to the rig ht like kind2

of towards the chee k.” When a sked if the hit to the fac e looked like it hurt, T.N. testified, “Ye ah.” T.N. also testified that Da vis hit Buie with enoug h forc e that B uie was knoc ked to the g round but that she ca

ug ht herself

with her rig ht hand. T.N. e x plained that as soon as she saw Buie f all to the g round she de cided to ca ll the police
. The 911 tape of this call was admitted into evidenc e, and the
rec ord re flec ts that the trial court listened to it.

On cross -e xami natio n, T. N. wa s a sk e d if sh e c ou ld s e e the inc ide nt c le arl y de sp ite the fa ct that it occur

red at night. T.N. te stified that the street was lit fr om lights from the r esidenc es and that she c ould see “ perf ect” and “f

ine.” Deputy Ralph Cisneros responde d to the 911 call and interviewe d and took picture s of B uie. Copies of the picture s were admitted into e vidence
. Cisneros testified that Buie was not cooper ative during the i nterview
. When asked if he saw any injuries on Buie , Cisneros testified that he obser ved a sma ll bruise on her r ight wr ist. Buie testified that Davis was the fathe r of her children. Buie explained that she had
an ar g ument with Davis “that g ot out of control” and “that turne d into a kind of wre stling match.” Howeve r, B uie testified that she a nd Davis we re “ both at fault” a nd that it was “a

n equal a rg ument.” When asked if at some point dur ing the argument she fell and lost her balanc e, B uie re sponded that sh e tho ug ht that sh e and Da vis bo th fe ll wh e n the y

we re “ wr e stl ing ” ov e r t

he ke y s. Whe n a sk e d if she wa s struck in the head, Buie testified, “No, I wasn’t struck at all.” B uie also denie d that there
was a ny outside lighting , althoug h she admitted that one of her ne ighbor s had a “ g uard lig ht.”I n a benc h trial, the cour t acts as the f

act- finder. See J

os e ph v . S tate , 897 S.W .2d 374, 376 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 3

Buie also explained that she and Da vis were having trouble with Child P rotec tive Service s (“CPS”) and that her children wer e curr ently with CPS. When a sked if she wa s wo rried that she mig ht not ge t her c hildren bac k if Davis wa s convicted of assault, B uie testified: No, I mean not nece ssarily no, but I mean I have no doubts that this will be dismissed beca use this whole ca se is r idiculous. I mean I applaud your ef

forts and I ’ve know n some peo p l e o u t there that y ou know, they g o throug h this and Iunderstand where y ou’re coming from, but this is not t he ca se her e. Davis pre sented no e vidence in his defense . After both sides closed, the tria l court found Davis guilty

of assa ult-family violence a

nd place d him on probation. This appe al followed.
DI SCU SSIO N Da vis ’s on ly

argume nt o n a

pp e a l i s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly insufficient to support his conviction.

When there is a challeng e to the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to sustain a cr iminal conviction, we consider whether a rational trier of f

act could have found t he esse ntial elements of 1 the off en se beyond a re asonable doubt. Vo do c ho ds k yv . S tate , 1 58 S.W. 3d

50 2, 50 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2005). We re view all the e vidence in the l ight most favor able to the verdict and assume that the tr ie r o f f

a c t r e so lve d c on fl ic ts i n th e tes timon y , w e ig he d th e e vid e nc e , a nd dr e w r e a so na

ble infere nces in a

manner that s u p p orts the ver dict. Se e Gr iff in v . S tate , 614 S.W .2d 155, 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)
. I t is not ne cessa ry that ever

y fac t point direc tly and indepe ndently to the4

defe ndant’s guilt; i t is enoug h if the conclusion is w arr anted by the combined and c umulative forc e of all the incr iminating cir cumstance s. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 8 71 S.W. 2d

18 3, 18 6 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1993). We consider even e rrone ously

admitted evidenc e. Id
. 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 ne utr a l lig ht and as k whether the fa ct-finde r wa s rationally justified in finding gui l t b ey o n d a re asonable doubt. See W ats on v . S tate , 2 0 4 S. W. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 6 )
. We th e n d e te r mine whether

the evidenc e supporting the ver dict is so weak that the verdic t is clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust or whether the ver dict is a g ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the conf licting e vidence
. Id
. a t 41 5. We wi ll no t re ve rs e a c a se on a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e un le ss w e c an s ay , w ithso me objective ba sis in the rec ord, t hat t he gre at weight and preponde ranc e of the evidence c ontradicts the fac t-finder ’s ver dict. Id . at 417.

Un de r b oth

the le g a l and fa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y sta

nd ard s of re vie w, the tr ie r o f f

a c t is the exclusive judge of the fa cts, t h e cr edibility of the witnesse s, and the we ight to be g iven to the witnesses’ testimony
. J

ag ge rs v. Sta te , 125 S.W .3d 661, 670 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, p et
. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Pe nagrap h v . S tate , 623 S.W. 2d 34 1, 34 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 )) . U nd e r b oth le g a l and fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie ws , an a

pp e llate c ourt

mus t be a pp ro pr iate ly

de fe re nti a l to the fa c tfi nd e r’ s rol e a t tr ia l. Ha rv e yv . S tate , 135 S.W .3d 712, 717 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pe t.) (citing J on es v . S tate , 94 4 S.W. 2d

64 2, 64 7- 48 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 )) . T he fa c t- fi nd e r m ay be lie ve a ll, some, or none of

any witness’s testimony
. Sh ar p v . S tate , 707 S.W .2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 86 ); J ag ge rs , 125 S.W .3d at 670. This standard of revie w applies to both direc t and circ umstantial evidenc e ca ses. Kin g v . S tate , 29 S.W .3d 556, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).5 Davis conte nds that the State failed to pr ove that he cause d “bodily injury ” to Buie. “B odily injury ” mea

ns phy sical pa in, illness, or any impairment of phy sical condition. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a )(8) (West Supp. 2006). This definition is purposef ully broad a

nd encompa sses
ev en re l at i v el y

m i n o r p h y s i ca l co n t ac ts o l o n g as i t co n s t i tu t es m o re t h an m er e o ff en s i v e t o u ch i n g. Lan e v . S tate , 7 63 S.W. 2d

78 5, 78 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); In re M. C.L. , 1 1 0 S. W. 3 d 5 9 1 , 600 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). I t is not necessar y that the alleg ed victim testify that she experience d pain; the trier of fac t ma y draw rea sonable infere nces from the evidenc e, including an infere nce that the victim suffere d pain as a result of he r injuries. Bo lto n v . S tate , 619 S.W .2d 166, 16 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ) (e vid e nc e of c ut wa s su ff ic ie nt to sh owbo dil y

inj ur y ); Ar zaga v . S tate , 86 S.W .3d 767, 778 (Tex. A pp.—El Paso 2002, no pet.) (evide nce of swelling and bruising of lips
wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o s ho w b od ily inj ur y ); Go od in v . S tate , 7 5 0 S .W.2d 857, 859 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref’d) (evidenc e of bruises and muscle strain wa s sufficient to show bodily

injury). T.N. testified that she obser ved Davis strike Buie a cross the f ace with enoug h forc e to “ kn oc k h e r t o th e g ro un d. ” A r a tio na l f a ct- fi nd e r c ou ld r e a so na

bly inf e r t hat su c h f or c e wo uld
cause phy sical pain. F urthermor e, De puty Cis n er o s t est ified that he obse rved a small bruise on Buie ’s right wrist. Although Cisner os could not be ce rtain that this injury was c aused dur ing B uie’s alterc ation with Davis, such an injury is consistent with T.N.’s testimony that she saw B uie use he r rig ht hand to preve nt herself from completely falling to the ground when Davis st ruck her. A pictur e of thi s b ru ise wa s a dmi tte d in to e vid e nc e . V ie wi ng the a bo ve e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t f a vo ra ble6

to t he ve rd ic t, w e c on c lud e tha t th e re is l e gall y su ffi cient e vid e nc e to s up po rt

a fi nd ingof

bo dil y injury . We overrule Davis’s fir st issue.

We also conclude that the eviden ce is fa ctually sufficie nt to support a finding of bodily injury . The only

evidenc e contr ary

to the finding is B uie’s testimony that Davis did not strike her. H oweve r, the trial c ourt was in the best position to judge the cr edibility of this statement in light of the c ir c ums tanc e s und e r whic h it wa s ma de . B uie te sti fi e d th a t sh e and Da vis we re havin g tr ou

ble with CP S, and a rational fac t-finder could have conclude d that Buie was not being truthful a bout Davis’s c onduct bec ause B uie may have be lieved that if Da

vis was convicte d of assa ult, there wa s
a c ha nc e that he r c hil dr e n w ou ld n ot b e re tu rned to h e r. Al tho ug h B uie de nie d th a t th is w a s a motivating fac tor in he r testimony , the trier of fac t could have r ationally chosen not to believe her. The trier of fa ct could have also chosen not to believe Buie ’s testimony based on D eputy

Cisnero’s testimony that Buie was not coope rative dur ing his intervie w of he r. We a lso no te that T.N . tes tif ie d that, a lth ou g h it

wa s d ark ou tsi de duri ng the inc ide nt, beca use of the light coming from the r esidenc es, she c ould see the inc ident “per fec t[ ly ].” The trier of fa ct could have chosen to cre dit this testimony and dis cre dit Buie ’s t estimony that there was no
o u t d oor lig hting. The trial court a lso list ened to T.N .’s 911 ca ll and could have made a deter mination that T.N.’s trial testi m o n y was consistent with t he stateme nts T.N. made dur ing the call.

Essentially , this was a ca se of conflicting testimony —an ey ewitness testified that she ob se rv e d a

n a ssa ult and ano the r w itn e ss, the a lle g e d v ic tim , d e nie d th a t th e re wa s an as sa ult
. I t is the role of the fa ct-finde r to rec oncile conflicts in the evidence and, considering the above evidenc e7

in a neutra l light, we do not be lieve that it was a g ainst t h e great weig ht and pre pondera nce of the
e v id e n c e f

o r the f a c t- f in d e r to a c c e p t t

h e te s ti mo n y

o f T
. N
. an d r e je c t t h e te s ti mo n y

o f B u ie
. We
overr ule Davis’s se cond issue.
CO NC LU SION Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d D a vis ’s iss ue s o n a

pp e a l, w e a ff

ir m th e ju dgmen t of th e c ounty court at law.

____________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 28, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh