Opinion filed May 2, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-11-00140-CR

__________

DEBORAH LORRAINE TERRY A/K/A DEBORAH LORRAINE REED 

A/K/A DEBORAH LORRAINE AIKMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Erath County Court at Law

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 41,954

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury found Appellant, Deborah Lorraine Terry a/k/a Deborah Lorraine 

Reed a/k/a Deborah Lorraine Aikman,

1 guilty of the misdemeanor offense of 

cruelty to livestock animals and assessed punishment at one year in jail and a 

$1,500 fine, but recommended community supervision. The trial court sentenced

 1

We note that the reporter’s record refers to Appellant as Devorah Aikman throughout. 
2

Appellant to one year in jail, but suspended the imposition of the sentence and 

ordered Appellant to complete two years of community supervision and pay the 

$1,500 fine. In her sole issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of 

the evidence to support the jury finding that she intentionally or knowingly 

committed the charged offense. We affirm.

I. Background

Officers in the Stephenville Police Department and the Erath County 

Sheriff’s Department separately received complaints on the welfare of 

approximately eleven horses owned by Appellant. Charles Allen contacted Deputy 

Larry Cox of the Erath County Sheriff’s Department regarding horses that were 

being kept on ten acres behind the Bosque River Apartments in Stephenville. 

Allen, a horse trainer, was looking for a suitable rental property to stable horses in 

Erath County. Allen testified that the property smelled “like . . . a pig pen” and

that the conditions were terrible. He stated that the horses were stabled in small 

muddy pens and that the only food he saw was an old bale of hay about fifty yards 

from the pens. The hay was being covered by feed sacks.

Officer Scott Whitely worked in the animal control department of the 

Stephenville Police Department. Officer Whitely investigated a report that there 

were some horses behind the Bosque River Apartments that were not being cared 

for properly. Officer Whitely testified that the property had a “bad stench” and

that two stud horses—Fleet Bob and Commitment—were standing in deep mud 

and manure with no feed or hay. Officer Whitely recalled that the available 

drinking water was dark with bits of hay stuck in it and visible mosquito larvae. 

The two stud horses had prominent backbones, visible ribs, and rotted hooves and 

were wild and unsocial. Based on Officer Whitely’s observations and Allen’s 

statement to Deputy Cox, the police obtained a warrant to seize the horses. 

Officer Whitely identified Appellant as the owner of the horses. Nine of the eleven 
3

horses were later returned to Appellant; Fleet Bob and Commitment were sold at 

auction.

Bob Waldron is a veterinarian at the Animal Health and Medical Center in 

Stephenville. Dr. Waldron examined the eleven seized horses for their general 

body condition. He said that nine of the horses had satisfactory body conditions 

and were not starving. He found that Fleet Bob and Commitment were emaciated

with little muscle mass on the rump, no fat covering on their bodies, and easily 

visible ribs and vertebrae. Dr. Waldron stated that Fleet Bob’s and Commitment’s 

condition would have worsened gradually over several weeks or months and that 

their condition could not have deteriorated to that level in less than two weeks. 

Dr. Waldron testified that, while it is possible for an older horse to be underweight 

even with very good care, the condition of the two stud horses was not the result of 

age. Fleet Bob was a relatively young thoroughbred horse, while Commitment 

was middle-aged. Dr. Waldron opined that their condition was the result of either 

“malnutrition or extreme environmental stresses that led to malnutrition.” 

Dr. Waldron elaborated that standing in mud or water for long periods of time can 

lead to infections in the hooves, legs, and skin of a horse and that standing water or 

mud is a breeding ground for flies, which further irritate the horses.

Tandi Rider housed Appellant’s eleven horses following the seizure. She 

kept Fleet Bob and Commitment from the July seizure until the auction in 

September, during which both horses gained weight. When the stud horses first 

arrived, they were very malnourished and underweight and had sore feet. Rider

stated that the two stud horses were so “glossy eyed” that they did not fight even 

though they were stabled in relatively close quarters for stallions. She stated that 

Commitment was around fifteen years old, that Fleet Bob was younger, and that 

neither horse appeared to have any illnesses aside from a lack of food and care. 

Appellant never sent her veterinarian to inspect the horses, never sent any feed, and 
4

did not provide any care for the stud horses during their stay at Rider’s ranch. 

Rider testified that she had been a part of the horse industry her entire life but that

she had never before dealt with horses in such bad physical condition as Fleet Bob

and Commitment.

In her defense, Appellant stated that, one month prior to the seizure, she 

moved to Houston for work; however, she and her family returned to Stephenville 

every two weeks to check on her horses. She hired Donna Kreitz to care for the 

horses while she was away and purchased feed, hay, and watering hoses for Donna 

to use. Before her family’s move to Houston, Appellant cared for the horses. 

Appellant testified that she owned and was responsible for the eleven seized horses 

but that she purchased Commitment on an installment contract and was behind on 

the payments. Appellant stated that, when she left for Houston, Commitment had 

“gut problems” and was underweight due to those issues, but was not emaciated. 

Appellant’s husband, Jerry Aikman, testified on her behalf. Jerry said that,

before the family moved to Houston, Fleet Bob and Commitment were “a little 

underweight,” but otherwise were doing well. Jerry saw the two stud horses two 

weeks prior to the seizure when Appellant and he drove back to Stephenville to 

check on the horses. When he saw the horses after the seizure, two weeks after his 

last return to Stephenville, Commitment was in “bad shape,” and it did not appear 

to him that Donna had fed the animals. Jerry testified that he found 200 pounds of 

unused feed after the seizure. Jerry further stated that the dirty water that the 

police referred to was rain water that had collected in a wheelbarrow and was not 

the horses’ water supply.

Appellant also called Rhett Harrison and Sam Taylor as witnesses. Harrison 

rented property near Gorman, Texas, to Appellant for pasturing some of her horses. 

His property was not involved in the seizure of the horses. Harrison testified that

he stopped by his property every few days and that the horses at that location 
5

appeared to be in reasonably good shape. Harrison admitted that a few of the 

horses looked “old” and “wormy.” Several years before, Taylor housed his horses 

at a stable managed by Appellant. He noticed no neglected animals, but Taylor 

saw an aged and underweight stallion. After Appellant moved to the property 

behind the Bosque River Apartments, Taylor saw the mares, which appeared to be 

in good condition in the front pasture, but he could not see the pens where 

Appellant kept the stud horses.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish the elements of 

the offense of cruelty to livestock animals. We review a sufficiency of the 

evidence issue under the standard of review in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 

(1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Polk v. 

State, 337 S.W.3d 286, 288–89 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. ref’d). Under the 

Jackson standard, we review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; 

Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The jury may make 

reasonable inferences from the evidence and can rely on both circumstantial and 

direct evidence in its determination. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 14–16 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). We defer to the jury’s role as the sole judge of witnesses’

credibility and the weight their testimony is afforded. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. 

The State charged Appellant with cruelty to livestock animals under 

Section 42.09 of the Texas Penal Code. Section 42.09 provides that a person 

commits the offense by knowingly or intentionally failing to provide food, water, 

or care necessary to maintain good health for a livestock animal in the person’s 

custody. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.09(a)(2), (b)(6) (West 2011). Horses are

livestock animals. Id. § 42.09(b)(5)(B).
6

Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to establish that she 

knowingly or intentionally committed the offense. A person acts intentionally 

when the person has a conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or 

cause the result; a person acts knowingly when she is aware of the nature of her 

conduct or that the circumstances exist. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(a), (b) 

(West 2011). Although Appellant maintains that no evidence of intent or 

knowledge exists, a jury may infer a culpable mental state from circumstantial 

evidence, including the acts, words, and conduct of Appellant. Martinez v. State, 

48 S.W.3d 273, 276 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. ref’d) (citing Pine v. 

State, 889 S.W.2d 625, 629 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d)). 

Dr. Waldron testified that it would take longer than two weeks for the 

horses’ condition to deteriorate to the state they were in when he examined them. 

Appellant and Jerry testified that they last saw the horses two weeks before the 

State seized the horses. Appellant admitted that, prior to her move to Houston, she 

was the caretaker of her horses and that she left for Houston roughly one month 

before the State seized the horses. When the State cross-examined Appellant, she 

said that Donna, Appellant’s hired caretaker, was a truck driver and was out of 

town on truck runs during the week. Appellant also testified to her monthly 

income and her monthly expenses; she testified that she “could not afford to feed

11 horses.” The jury heard Appellant say, “I’ve been doing it [horse care] for so 

many years that I haven’t changed one thing since you took my horses and stole 

them from me.”

Here, the evidence indicates a long period of deprivation and neglect. The 

State introduced photographs of the two horses when they were seized and 

photographs of the same horses after six weeks in Rider’s care; the “after” 

photographs showed that the horses were no longer emaciated. Presented with 

evidence of Fleet Bob’s and Commitment’s physical condition and with the 
7

testimony that Appellant saw the horses two weeks prior to the seizure and was the 

primary caretaker until one month before seizure, a jury could easily infer intent or 

knowledge. We hold that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to 

the verdict, supports the jury’s verdict that Appellant knowingly or intentionally 

deprived the horses of necessary food, water, and care. “The quantity and quality 

of food necessary to sustain a horse is a matter of common knowledge among 

persons familiar with the care of horses.” Cross v. State, 646 S.W.2d 514, 515–16 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1982, pet. ref’d). As the factfinder, the jury could have

rationally determined that Appellant knew of the malnourishment.

Appellant attempts to distinguish the facts of her case from those in Pine. 

Pine, 889 S.W.2d 625. In Pine, the defendant was found guilty of cruelty to 

livestock animals for failing to provide necessary food, water, and care to a colt. 

Id. at 627. Similar to this case, Pine hired someone to feed and care for the colt. 

Id. at 629–30. Appellant argues that Pine is in direct contrast to her case because 

Pine was on the property every day, whereas she was “hundreds of miles away.” A 

closer reading of the Pine opinion reveals that Pine testified he only saw the colt 

every two to three weeks and paid someone to feed and care for the colt daily. Id.

at 630. Pine is analogous to the facts of Appellant’s case. 

We have reviewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, and we determine that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We overrule Appellant’s sole 

issue on appeal. 
8

III. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE

May 2, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.