Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00645-CR

Kayela Paige MCCLINTICK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR1185C

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

AFFIRMED

Kayela McClintick appeals her conviction for causing serious bodily injury to her child, 

J.C. Her sole issue is that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that she caused 

serious bodily injury to J.C. We affirm. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Child Protective Services investigated a report of child abuse and went to a home in San 

Antonio and found McClintick’s two children, J.C. and J.M. The CPS investigators observed there 
04-14-00645-CR

- 2 -

was no food for the children. J.C. and J.M. were taken to an area hospital where they were both 

treated. J.M. was released the same night, but J.C. was admitted and discharged five days later. 

McClintick was indicted for two felony offenses. The first count was for causing serious 

bodily injury to J.C., and the second count was for causing bodily injury to J.M. Following a jury 

trial, McClintick was convicted of both counts and sentenced to twenty years’ confinement on the 

first count and five years’ confinement on the second. McClintick appeals her conviction for the 

first count only. 

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

McClintick argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that she caused 

serious bodily injury to J.C. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether 

“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); accord Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 

517 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” 

Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “Our role on appeal is restricted to 

guarding against the rare occurrence when a factfinder does not act rationally,” and we must “defer 

to the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the 

evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Isassi v. State, 330 

S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A jury 

may “draw multiple reasonable inferences as long as each inference is supported by the evidence 

presented at trial.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

“A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal 

negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, . . . 

serious bodily injury.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2014). McClintick does not 
04-14-00645-CR

- 3 -

challenge that she caused injury to J.C., but she argues the evidence is legally insufficient to 

support the injury was a “serious bodily injury.” 

“‘Serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that 

causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of 

any bodily member or organ.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(46) (West Supp. 2014). The Penal 

Code does not define “protracted.” “[T]erms not legislatively defined are typically to be 

understood as ordinary usage allows, and jurors may thus give them any meaning which is 

acceptable in common parlance.” Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769, 771-72 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2000). “Protracted” can be understood as “continuing, dragged out, drawn out, elongated, 

extended, lengthened, lengthy, lingering, long, long-continued, long-drawn, never-ending, 

ongoing, prolix, prolonged, or unending.” Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347, 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1987) (citing Burton, Legal Thesaurus 418 (1980 ed.)). Therefore, the “serious bodily injury” 

element may be satisfied if the evidence permitted a rational jury to find J.C. suffered an ongoing 

loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. See id.

Dr. Lukefahr, an expert witness for the State, testified he examined J.C. on July 16, 2012, 

which was three days after J.C. had been admitted to the hospital. Dr. Lukefahr stated he diagnosed 

J.C. with starvation. He testified she appeared very emaciated. In other words, she had no body 

fat.

You could see her ribs very clearly, her neck muscles. Her eyes were very gaunt 

appearing. She had a very protuberant abdomen. Her abdomen really stuck out. Her 

extremities, her arms and legs were very thin. She had very, kind of, sparse 

abnormally thin hair and had an unusual reddish color to it. And one of the most 

striking things also was that she had such a small amount of body fat that her skin

literally hung off of her buttocks and her genital area. . . . [T]he most significant 

thing was that her liver was significantly enlarged.” 

He explained this was “commonly seen in severe starvation where someone’s had their nutritional 

intake severely restricted for a period of time and the body reacts to that in a number of ways, and 
04-14-00645-CR

- 4 -

one of them is that frequently the liver will become markedly enlarged.” He stated the edge of 

J.C.’s liver “was palpably not where it was supposed to be.” Dr. Lukefahr explained this would 

have occurred “over a period of time, probably a period of weeks or months.” Dr. Lukefahr further 

explained the effect starvation had on J.C.’s muscles. “She also was markedly weak. . . . [H]er 

muscles had became [sic] so weak that it was very difficult for her even to walk.” He testified, 

“Someone has to be undernourished for a pretty significant period of time to get the profound 

weakness that she had in the hospital.”

McClintick argues Dr. Lukefahr’s testimony does not support J.C. suffered from “the 

protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ.” We disagree. Dr. Lukefahr opined 

that the malnourishment occurred over a significant period of time, probably a period of weeks or 

months, which caused J.C.’s liver to become enlarged and caused her muscles to become so weak 

it was difficult for her to walk. The jury could have rationally inferred from Dr. Lukefahr’s 

testimony that the loss or impairment to the function of J.M.’s muscles and other organs resulting 

from starvation had been ongoing. Therefore, we hold the evidence is legally sufficient to support 

the jury’s finding that McClintick caused serious bodily injury to J.C.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Do Not Publish