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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 237 -CR

Ri c har d Al an A shc r aft , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A-06 -12 47- S , HO NORAB LE JAY K. WEATH ERB Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury fo u nd appellant Richa rd Alan A shcra ft g uilty

of ag g ravated assault with a deadly wea pon. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.02(a) (2) ( West S upp. 2007). T h e district cour t
a sse sse d p un ish me nt, e nh a nc e d b y a pr e vio us fe lony

c on vic tio n, a t tw e nty
- f

i v e y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt. I n a single point of err or, appellant contends that the evidenc e does not support the jury ’s finding that a dea dly wea pon was used in the a ssault. We overrule this conte ntion and aff irm the conviction. Ar o u n d midnight on J uly 2, 2006, appellant a

nd Daniel Sandova l drove fr om Ba llinger to San Ang elo to visit Alfred Parks. What hap p en ed after they arr ived was a

matter of
so me dis pu te . Pa

rk s te sti fi e d th a t he wa s a wa ke ne d b y Sand ov a l’ s k

no c k o n h is d oo r. Park s sa id that he first told Sandoval and a ppellant that he did not wa nt company , but he re lented and a dmitted them. Acc ording to Par

ks, both Sandova l a

nd appellant wer e intox icated. A fter thirty or for ty -five minutes, Sandov al and appe llant got up to leave, and Par ks acc ompanied them outside. Parks2

testified that as they stood on the porch, a ppellant beg an “hitting me in the bac k.” Parks sa id that he ra n toward the alley , wher e appellant caug ht up with him and “hit me ag ain.” Par ks testified that he did not rea liz e initially that appellant ha d in f

act stabbed him. Acc ording to Parks, “I didn’t fee l it until Ireach ed ar ound behind my back a nd went like that and I

seen the blood on my

hand.” During cross-e x amination, Parks added, “I didn’t fee l no puncture or nothing. I ’ve b ee n s t abbed befor e so I

know how it fee ls.
. . . Ididn’t even f eel this.” Parks sa id that he neve r saw the wea pon,
a nd he a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he tol d c on fl ic tin g sto ri e s to the po lic e fo llo wi ngthe inc ide nt.

I n his own testimony , appellant said that Parks beca me ang ry when he saw a

ppellant with Sandoval. Appellant aske d Parks why he wa s ang ry , but Parks did n o t re ply . I nstead, Parks
re e nte re d th e ho us e , le a vin g a pp e lla nt a nd Sand ov a l on

the po rc h, a nd

the n re tur ne d hold inga

sma ll pocket k n i fe wi t h a two-inc h blade. Ac cordingto appellant, Parks “ came at me” w ith the knife. A p p el l an t fl ed t o t h e al l ey , wh er e he an d P ar k s b ega n t o wr es t l e an d fe l l t o t h e gro u n d
. In the scuff le, Parks droppe d the knife. A ppellant said that he picked up the knife and stabbed Parks “to g et him off of me .” Appe llant testified that afte r st ab b i n g Parks, he dr opped the knife in the
a l l e y a n d f

l e d
. A p p e l l a n t s a i d t h a t h e r e g r e t t e d s t a b b i n g P a r k s , a n d th a t h e h a d d o n e s o o n ly to defe nd himself.

The police office r who first responde d to the emerg ency call found Parks ly ing on a bed, with blood “all over the bed and his ba ck.” Par ks was tra nsported to the hospital, wher e he w as found to have four stab w ounds to his back. Medica l r ecor ds and photog raphs in evide nce r efle ct that two of the stab wounds wer e just to the rig ht of Parks’s spine, be low the shoulder blade . One of these w ounds was 2 centimeter s acr oss and 2.5 ce ntimeters dee p, while the other was 1 c entimeter3

a c ro ss a nd 2. 5 c e nti me te rs de e p. Th e oth e r tw o w ound s w e re on the le ft sid e of Park s’ s b a c k, a lso below the shoulder

blade. One of t hese wounds was 1 centimeter acr oss and 5 centimeters dee p, and the other w as 1 ce ntimeter ac ross and 3 c entimeters de ep.

Th e re is n o e vid e nc e that P a rk s lo st a lif e -t hr e a te nin g a mou

nt o f b loo d, bu t a photogr aph of the pants he wa s wea ring shows that there wer e larg e blood s tains. A pattern of blood drops was f

ound running from Parks’ s porch and along the g round toward the alley
. The knife was
ne ve r r e c ov e re d, bu t it

is und isp ute d th a t it

wa s th e we a

po n u se d b y

a pp e lla nt t o s ta b Pa rk s. The jury reje cted ap p ellant’s self- defe nse cla im and convicted him of a g g ravated assault. Appellant c halleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence only

with respec t to the jury ’s finding that the knife w as a de adly wea pon. Appellant does not indicate whether he is r aising a leg al or a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e . In th e int e re st o f j us tic e , w e wi ll r e vie w the e vi den ce un der both standards. Under

the leg al suffic iency

standard, the question prese nted is whether , viewing the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, a rational tr ier of fac t c ould have f ound that the k n i fe was a de adly

wea pon. Se e J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 24 (1 97 9) ; Gr iff in v . S tat e , 614 S.W .2d 155, 1 5 8 -5 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Under the fac tual sufficie ncy standard, the evidenc e is vie wed neutra lly , and the evidenc e will be deeme d insufficient if the e vidence supporting the jury ’s finding is so wea k as to make the f inding c lear ly

wrongor manife stly

unjust, or if the finding is a g ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the ava ilable evidenc e. Se e W ats on v . S tat e , 20 4 S. W.3 d 4 04 , 4 14 -1 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 23 S.W. 3d 1, 11 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000).4 An or din a ry kn if e is n ot a de a dly

we a po n p e r s e ; th a t is , it

is n ot a n o bje c t ma

nif e stl y desig ned, made, or adapte d for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury
. Tex. P enal Cod e Ann. § 1 .0 7( a )( 17 )( A) (We st Su pp . 2 00 7) ; Mc Cai n v . S tat e , 22 S.W
. 3 d 4 9 7 , 502-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 00). I nstead, a knife be comes a

deadly wea pon if, in the manner

of its use or inte n d e d u s e , it is c a p a b le o f c a u s in g d e a th

o r s e r io u s b o d il y

in ju r y . T e x. Pe n a l C o d e Ann. § 1 .0 7( a )( 17 )( B ); Mc Cai n , 2 2 S. W.3 d at 50 3. Th is c a pa bil ity mus t be e va luate d in l ig ht o f t he fa c ts that exis ted when the offe nse wa s committed. Brown v . S tate , 716 S.W. 2d

93 9, 94 6- 47 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1986). Appellant ar g ues that the knife at issue was not shown to b e a dea dly wea pon be c a us e : ( 1) the bla de wa s o nly tw o in c he s lo nga nd

the re is n o e vid e nc e that a bla de of thi s le ng th is capa ble of inflicting serious bodily injuries or death; (2) the wounds inflicted wer e not serious a nd did not require stitches ; an d (3) there is no evidenc e that appe llant threate ned Parks or intended t o s er i o u s l y hurt him. He re lies primarily on the opinion in Tuc k

e r v . S tat e , 2 2 1 S. W. 3 d

7 80 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007, pet. g rante d). I n that case , the def endant stabbe d the complainant twice with a two-inch folding knife, once in the neck ne ar the spine and onc e on her arm. Id . at 782. The c ourt held that the e vidence did not support the finding that the knife wa s a dea dly wea pon be c a us e the wo un ds inf

lic te d w e re no t se ri ou s, the re wa s n o e vid e nc e of thr e a ts by th e de fe nd a nt, there was no testimony

that the knife ( which wa s not in evidence ) wa s capa ble of c au s i n g serious bodily injury or death, and “ther e wa s no evidenc e whatsoeve r reg arding the manner ” of the knife’s use by the def endant. Id . at 784.5 W e are not per suaded by

the Tucker c o u rt’ s a n a ly s is
. F o r o n e th in g , th e c o u rt was simply wrongwhen it stated that there was no evidenc e reg arding the m anner of t he knife ’s use by the def endant. To the contra

ry , the evidenc e showe d th at t h e d ef en d ant used the knife to stab the complainant twice , once in the ne ck nea r the spine. Id
. at 782. I t is not necessar y to introduce a knife into e vidence in or der to pr ove that it wa s a deadly wea pon. Vi c tor

v . S tat e , 874 S.W .2d 748, 751 (Tex. App.—Housto n [ 1 s t Di st.] 1994, pet. re f’d) . Ex pert testimony is also not required. Da v ids on v . S

tat e , 602 S.W .2d 272, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Moreove r, it is not necessar y for the Sta te to p ro ve that th e wo un ds inf lic te d w e re se ri ou s; i n f

a c t, n o w ound s n e e d b e inf lic te d at a ll. Id
. F i n a l l y, i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e a c t o r a c tu a l l y i n t e n d t o c a u s e d e a t h o r

s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y; it i s su ff ic ie nt t hat th e a c tor

int e nd e d a

us e of the kn if

e in wh ic h it wo uld be c a

pa ble of c a us ingde a th
or ser ious bodily

injury
. Mc Cai n , 22 S.W .3d at 503. I n Mc Cai n , the def

endant burst into the complainant’s house, struck he r seve ral times with his fist, and stole her ca r and pa g er. Id . at 499. The c omplainant testified that during the attac k, she sa w an o b

j ec t t h at appeare d to be a knife sticking out of the defe ndant’s bac k pocket, a nd the defe nd an t h ad a butcher knife in his pocket when he was a rre sted. Id . The de fenda nt did not
ve rb a lly thr e a te n th e c omp la ina

nt, br a nd ish the kn if

e , o r e ve n r e fe r t o th e kn if e duri ngthe a ssa

ult
. Id . The c ourt of cr iminal appeals hel d t h at “the mer e ca rry ing of a butche r knife dur ing suc h a violent attack . . . wa s leg ally sufficie nt for a f

actf inder to conc lude that the ‘intende d use’ of the kn if e w a s th a t it b e c a

p a b le o f c a u s in g d e a th o r bodily

injury .” Id . at 503. Henc e, the knife was proved to be a dea dly

wea pon under the circ umstances. Id
.6 A pocke t knife with a t wo-inch bla de is not a par ticularly fea rsome we apon. Ne ve rt he le ss, the e vid e nc e be fo re us sh ow s that a pp e lla nt us e d the kn if

e to s ta b Pa rk s f our t ime s in the ba c k. Al tho ug h the wo un ds we re no t show n to be se ri ou s, the y did re qu ir e ho sp ita l tr e a tme nt. Moreove r, two of the sta b wounds wer e ver

y close to Parks’s spine, a nd the jury

could have
rea sonably inferr ed that, but for luck, the injurie s inflicted by appellant mig ht have be en much wor se. Even without the assistance of ex p er t t est imony , the jury could re asonably

conclude that a knife lon g e no ug h and sh arp enoug h to pe ne tr a te a bo dy a s d e e ply

a s 5 c e nti me te rs , w he n u se d to repe atedly

stab a pe rson in the bac k during a close phy sical st rug g le, i s capa ble of c ausing serious bodily injury . We hold that the evi d en ce in this case , viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t, was leg ally sufficie nt to support a finding t hat appellant intended to use and did use the knife as a de adly

wea pon. We also find the evidenc e to be fac tually sufficie nt. Appellant points out that Parks and Sandoval ( who also testified for the State) g ave c onflicting stories to the police on the nig ht of the offe nse, and told y et another story at trial. B ut appe l l ant also had a cre dibilit y

problem; he admitted having nine fe lony convictions since 1983. And in any event, the c onflicting testimony had to do with why

appellant a

nd Sandoval had g one to Parks’s house and who init iated the fig ht. The State did not seek t o ref

ute appe llant’s descr iption of the wea pon as a poc ketknife w ith a two-inch bla de , a nd a

pp e lla nt a dmi tte d in his ow n te sti mony that he re pe a te dly sta bb e d Park s in t

he ba c k w ith the kn if e a s th e tw o me n s tr

ug g le d in the a lle y . V ie wi nga ll the e vid e nc e in a ne utr a l li g ht, we ho ld that the jur

y ’s fi nd ing that the kn if

e wa s a de a dly we a po n in the mann e r o f i ts u se a nd int e nd e d u se by appellant wa s not manifestly unjust or ag ainst the g reat weig ht of the evide nce.7 The point of er

ror is over

ruled a nd the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 21, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh