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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 549 -CR

G e r ald D. P e nso n , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ASTROP COUNTY , 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 12,7 60 , HO NORAB LE REVA TOWSLEE CO RB ETT , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y fo un d a pp e lla nt G e ra ld D . Pe ns on

g uil ty of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly
wea pon, rec kless injury to a child, and reta liation, for which it assesse d punishments of seven y ear s
an d s i x m o n t h s i np r i s o n , t w o ye ar s i ns t a t e j a i l , a n d t w o ye ar s i np r i s o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. §§ 2 2
. 0 2 , 22.04, 36.06 (West Supp. 2008). I n three issues, appellant contends that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to sustain the convictions for injury to a child and
r e t a l i a t i o n , an d

t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r

r e d b y r e f u s i n g t o i n s t r

u c tt h e j u r

y o nt h e d e f

e n s e o f n e c e s s i t y. We w ill a ff

ir m th e c on vic tio ns . Th e e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t in Au g us t 20 06 , Jes us a Yb arr a sh are d he r r e sid e nc e in E lg in with three of

her da ug hters, Monica

Pierce , I sabel Pierc e, and J ennife r Yba rra , four g randc hildren, and appe llant, who was I sabel’s boy friend. Jesusa testified that a ppellant and I sabel spent much of the eve ning of

Aug ust 20 arg uing ove r appe llant’s acc usation, denied by I sabel, that I sabel ha d beenF or

c lari ty , w e wi ll r e fe r t o th e pa rt ie s b y the ir fi rs t na me s. 1 2 sleeping with other men. L ater , afte r midnight, the subject of the a rg ument chang ed. Appe llant 1 beg an to demand t h at I sabel g o with him to purchase g asoline for his car, but I sabel re fused to do so. Walking aw ay from appellant, I sabel went to J esusa’ s bedroom and g ot in bed with I sabel’s foury e ar- old da ug hte r, Julis sa

Ye pe z, w ho wa s a lr e a dy

sle e pin g the re . Jes us a a lso e nte re d th e be dr oo m, fo llo we d b y

a pp e lla nt. J esusa testified tha

t appellant bega

n to scre am at I sabel, c ursing her a nd demanding that she g et out of the be d and g o with him. J es u s a s t o od in front of a ppellant, urg ed ca lm, and threatened to ca ll the police. J esusa testified, “ When he comes c loser to the bed I pick up the phone. Itold him I was g oing to c all the cops. He told me, no. And I had the rec eiver , he y anked the phone
and it b ro ke .” Ac c or din g to Je su sa , a pp e lla nt t he n told he r, “ [I ]f I e ve n ca ll the c op s and the y c ome to the house, i f t hey

arr ested him that he wa s g oing to kill ever y body in that house once he g ot out.” J esusa picke d up a folding chair and ordered appellant to leave the house. When appe llant moved closer to the be d, J esusa struc k him on the back with the c hair.

J esusa’ s action had no e ffe ct on appe llant. She testified that appellant “lung ed at I sabel” and beg an to hit her with his fists. “[H] e just kept punchingher a nd punching her in the f

ace . So she g rabbe d the baby and she took the baby like this. W e kept telling him, stop, Gerald, she’ s g ot J ulissa. And he still kept h i t t i n g her a nd hitting her .” I sabel attempted to shield J ulissa from ap p e ll a n t’ s b lo w s b y

h o ld in g th e c h il d

b e h in d h e r . M e an w h il e , Je s u s a , M o n ic a , an d Je n n ifer attempted to pull appellant aw ay from I sabel without succe ss. J esusa testified that she went to the living room a

nd retrie ved a sma ll wooden bat, desc ribed in the re cord as a “souve nir bat,” that sheThe indictment alleg ed that appellant intentionally , knowing ly , or re cklessly injured the c hild, 2 bu t a t tr ia l th e State a

ba nd on e d th e fi rs t tw o c ulp a ble me nta l st a te s. 3 ke pt f or pr ote c tio n. Jesu sa the n re tur ne d to the be dr oo m and

str uc k a pp e lla nt’ s b a c k w iththe bat. Appellant turne d awa

y from I sabel a

nd toward Jesusa, and he attempt ed t o s ei z e the bat. He and J esusa strug g led and f

ell. This temporarily

ended the violence. All the adults left the bedr oom and went to the l i ving r oom except for I sabel, who went to the fr ont porch to sm oke a cig are tte. When I sabel started to ree nter the house , appellant r an to the front door, pushed her back onto the porch, and hit he r in the fac e. I sabel ba cked a way from appellant, but her

retre at was bloc ked by

the porc h railing . Appellant seized I sabel a nd t h rewher
ov e r t he ra ili nga nd

on to t he g ro un d. Th e n h e jum pe d o ve r t

he ra ili ngand

be g an to kic k I sa

be l. J esusa testified that Monica g rabbed t h e wooden bat and we nt to I sabel’s a id. Appellant took the bat f ro m Mo nic a

and be g an to hit

he r w ithit. Whe n I sa

be l st oo d a

nd ra n, a pp e lla nt b e g an to c ha se her on f oot. At this poi nt, the police we re c alled. I sabel, Monica , and Jennifer a lso testified, and their a ccou n t s of the incident
corr oborate d J esusa’ s. The State a ls o in tr o d u c e d p h o to gr a phs showing the injuries to I sabel, Monica , and Julis sa . T he de fe ns e c a lle d n o w itn e sse s.

The indictment conta ined fo u r counts accusingappellant of intentionally

or knowing ly

threatening I sabel (c ount one) a nd Monica (c ount two) with immi nent bodily injury by striking them with the bat, r eckle ssly causing bodily injury to J ulissa by striking he r with his hand (count thre e), and intentionally or knowing ly

threatening to murder Jesusa in reta liation for or on 2

a c c ount o f h e r s ta tus a s a pe rs on wh o a pp e lla nt kn e w int e nd e d to re po rt the oc c ur re nc e of a c ri me4

(c ount f our) . T he ju ry

fo un d a pp e lla nt n ot guil ty

of the fi rs t c ount, bu t r e tur

ne d v e rd ic ts o f guil ty
on the re ma ini ngc ounts
.

I n a fa ctual suff

iciency revie w, all the evidence is considered e qually , including the testimony of de fe nse witnesses a

nd the exist ence of alter native hy potheses. Cle wis v . S

tat e , 92 2 S. W.2 d 1 26 , 1 29 (Tex
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); Or on a v . S tat e , 836 S.W .2d 319, 321 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no pet.). Althoug h due def ere nce still must be accor ded the fac t finder’ s deter minations, particularly

those conc erningthe weig ht and cr edibilit y of the e vidence , the revie wing court may

disag ree with the result in order to preve nt a manife st injust ice. J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 2 3 S .W.3d

1, 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Cai n v . S tat e , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 7 ). The e vidence will be deeme d fac tually insufficient if the e vidence
su pp or tin g the ve rd ic t is so we a k a s to make the fi nd ing of g uil t cle arl y wr on g or manif e stl y un jus t,
or if the verdic t is ag ainst the g reat w eig ht a nd preponde ranc e of the available evidenc e. W ats on v . S tat e , 2 04 S.W. 3d

40 4, 41 4- 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Johnson , 23 S.W .3d at 11. Appellant ar g ues that the evidence is fac tually insufficient to support hi s conviction for injury to a child bec ause none of the witnesses testified that they saw appellant hit Juli ssa, much le ss h it h e r w ithhis fi st. Ap pe lla nt ov e rl oo ks Jenn if

e r’ s te sti mony

de sc ri bin g the ini tia l stru g g le in J esusa’ s bedroom. J ennife r was asked by the prosec utor if she saw J ulissa ge t hit. S he answ ere d, “Ye ah. When I sabel was holding her, he [appellant] hi t her.” She added, “ She [J ulissa] g ot hit right here on her he ad (indicating) .” Aske d what appe llant hit the child with, J ennife r answe red, “ I t was his f ist. He wa s hitti ng her w ith his fist .” Jennifer a dded, “I sabel picke d up J ulissa beca use she wa s cry ing. When she picked up Juli ssa[,] Ger ald went afte r her ag ain and he was g oing like this, like5

throwing his punches, b u t t h at’s how he ended up hitting J ulissa.” J ennife r identified State’ s exhibi t 24 as a photog raph of J ulissa showing the k n o t o n t h e chil d’s hea d cause d by appellant’ s blow. Although the testimony of t he other witnesses was not as detailed as J ennife r’s, none of them testified that appe llant did not st rike a nd injure J ulissa. The jury ’s verdict convicting appellant of injury to a chi l d is neither cle arly wrongnor ag ainst the g reat weig ht of the evide nce. I ssue two is overrule d.

Ap pe lla nt a lso c on ten ds that th e e vid e nc e is f a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

his
c on vic tio n f

or re ta liatio n. Jesu sa

te sti fi e d th a t wh e n a

pp e lla nt b e g an to a tta c k I sa

be l in the be dr oo m, she picke d up the telephone and told him that she was g oing to c all the police. Ac cordingto J esusa,
a pp e lla nt s natc he d th e te le ph on e fr om he r hand s and thr e a te ne d to kill “e ve ry bo dy in that ho us e ” if she ca lled the police. Appellant does not deny this, but he urg es that this was not “a n actua l threat to do harm” but mere ly “a comment made during a heate d argument.” He argues that Jesusa did not take the thr eat se ri o u s l y , n o t i n g that when a sked if she thoug ht appellant’s thre at was “ true,” she
answere d , “In a wa

y , y eah, be cause Iknow the wa y he wa s.” Section 36.06 does not, howe ver, distinguish betwee n “ac tual threats” and thre ats made “ du ri ng a heated ar g ument,” nor is the threatened pe rson’s re action an e lement of the of fense
. Se e Po lla rd

v . S tat e , 255 S.W .3d 184, 189 (Tex. App.—Sa n An t onio 2008), aff’d , No. PD-0363-08, 2009 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 233,
a t *2 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. F e b. 11 , 2 00 9) . T he jur y ’s ve rd ic t c on vic ti ng app ell ant o f r e ta liatio n is neither c lear ly

wrongnor ag ainst the g reat weig ht of the evide nce. I ssue three is overrule d. Finally , appellant c ontends, with respe ct t o his conviction for a ssaulting Monica , that the trial cour

t erre d by ref

using to instruct the jury

on the nec essity

defe nse. Conduct is justified by6

ne c e ssi ty if (1 ) the a c tor re a so na

bly be lie ve d th a t hi s c on du c t w a s im me diate ly ne c e ssa ry to a vo id imm ine nt h arm , ( 2) the de sir a bil ity and ur gency of avo idi ngthe ha rm c le arl y and re a so na bly outw e ig h e d th e h ar

m s o u g h t to b e p r e v e n te d b y th e la w p r o s c r ib in g th e a c to r ’ s c o n d u c t, an d ( 3) a leg islative purpose to exclude the c laimed justification does not otherwise plainly appea r. Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 9.22 (West 2003).

A def endant is entitled to an instruction on any defe nsive issue raised by

the evidenc e, whether that evidenc e is wea

k or strong , unimpeac h ed or c ontradicte d, and re g ardle ss of the trial court’s opinion ab o u t t he cr edibility of the de fense
. Gran ge r v . S tat e , 3 S.W .3d 36, 38 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Va nB ra c k le v . S tat e , 1 7 9 S. W. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 2 ( T e x. A p p . — Austin 2005,
no pet.). The re cord r efle cts that the trial cour t refuse d appellant’ s reque st for a ne cessity instruction be c a us e he did no t tes tif

y . I t is no t ne c e ssa

ry , h ow e ve r, fo r t

he de fe nd ant t o te sti fy

in o rd e r t o r a ise a def ense. Va nB ra c k

le , 1 7 9 S
. W
. 3 d a t 71 2; Bo get v . S tat e , 40 S.W .3d 624, 626 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2001), aff’d , 74 S.W .3d 23, 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A defe nsive issue may be ra ised by

the testimony

of any witness, even a

witness fo r t h e S t at e. Va nB ra c k le , 179 S.W .3d at 712. I n decidingwhether a def ensive theor

y is raised, the evidenc e is viewe d in the light most favor able to the de fense
. Id . at 713.

Monica testified that after appellant thre w I sabel off the porc h and beg an to kick her, “I [Moni ca] went a fter him to attack him be cause I had a bat and I was g oing to hit him with it. But wh e n I g ot to him to hit him he g ra bb e d the bat f

ro m me and

he tol d me , n o, y ou ’r e no t g oin g to h it me, bitch. So he g rabbe d the bat and he hit me.” J esusa testified similarly . Appellant conte nds that this testim ony

raised a n issue as to whethe r his striki n g M o n i ca wi th the bat was justified byAppellant did not reque st a self-de fense instruction and none wa s g iven. 3 7 n e c e s s i t y. We disag ree . Even if we a ssume that Monica’s attempt to hit appellant with the bat was

3 a thre at of imminent harm within the meaningof sec tion 9.22, the ev i d en ce shows that appellant ended that threat by

taking the bat aw ay

from Monica

befor e she c ould hit him with it. There is no
e vid e nc e that Mo nic a , a ft e r s he wa s d isa rm e d, re pr e se nte d a con tin uin g thr e a t of

imm ine nt h a rm

to appellant so as t o justify his attacking her with the bat. For this rea son, the trial cour t did not err by ref using the nece ssity

instruction. I ssue one is over ruled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 19, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh