### NUM BERS 13-0 8-25 7-CR and 13-08-2 58-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
PED RO TOR RES R ICO, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 65t h Dist rict C ou rt of D allas Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la In s eparate c ases tr ied tog ether , a jur y conv icted appel lan t, Pedro Tor re s R ic o, of
a t t e m p t in g t o t a k e a we a p o n f ro m a p e a c e o f f ic e r, a s t a t e ja il fe lo n y, se e T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 38. 14(b ), (e) (Verno n Sup p. 2008 ) (app ellate court cause numb er 13-08 -257 -CR) and of as saul t on a publ icse rv ant, a thi rd -d eg re e fe lony

. See id . § 22.01( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ) (a ppel lat e c our

t c ause number

13- 08- 258- CR ). The t ri al co u rt as ses sed puni shmentatT hi s app e a l w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s Co u r t f r o m t h e Fi ft h Co u r t o fA p p e a l s b y o r d e ro ft h e T exas 1 S u p re m e C o u rt. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 2 2 .2 2 0 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 4 ) (d e l i n e a ti n g th e ju ris d i c ti o n o f a p p e l l a te c o u rts ); T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 73. 001 ( Ver non 2005) (g r ant i ng t he su pr em e cou r t t he a ut hor i t y t o t r ansf er c as es fr om on e c ou rt of ap pe al s t o a no t he r at an y t i m e t ha t t he re i s “goo d c au s e” for t he t ran s fer) 2 180 days’ co nfinement in a state jai l facil ity and two y ears’ i mpri sonment , respecti v ely

. In
eac h c as e, th e tr i al c ou rt s us pe nd ed th e s en te nc es an d pl ac ed ap pe l l an t on two y ears’ communi ty

su per v is ion

. In t hir teen is sues , app ell ant arg ues: (1 ) the tr ial cour t improper ly re str icted his r ig ht t o c ro s s - e x a mi n e t h e v i c t i m; ( 2 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rtfa i l e d t o i n s t r u c tt h e j u r y o n t h e l a w

o f s e l fdefense provi ded in pena l code sect ion 38 .14 (d); (3) the evidence is legally a nd factu ally i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o rth i s c o n v i c t i o n s ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d s e l f
- d e fe n s e
. W e affi r m. 1 I. Factual Bac kg ro und A. Sta te’ s Eviden ce On t he ni g ht of J une 6, 2004, Officer Mic hael May

w as dr iv ing a mar ked pol ic e c ar in Garland , Te x as, equipp ed wi th a video cam er a , wh ic h recorde d au dio an d v ideo . He
car ri ed a w irele ss mic ro phone o n hi s b elt , w hic h transmi tted sound to his ca r’ s v ide o camera. At t his ti me, appe ll ant was dr iv ing home after dr ink ing beer at his brother ’s hous e. W hen O ff ic er

M ay pul led up to a re d lig ht, he s aw appel lan t t ur n ont o W aln ut S treet a nd driv e the w rong way

a gainst onco min g traf

f ic. Of f icer May tu rned o n his overhead lig hts, and app ellantpulled into his driv eway . Af ter Of f icer May knocke d on appe llant’s driv er’s si de w ind ow , app ell ant g ot out of hi s car and put his hands behi nd hi s b ack

. Off ic er M ay saw appel lan t “ had red w ater y ey es. ” C oncer ned app ell ant wa s reachi ng for a w eapon, Off ic er M ay tol d hi m to c ome towards him. H e refused, a nd w hen O ff ic er M ay g ra bbed
o n to a p p e llant’s sh ir

t t o pul l him cl oser , app ell ant p ushed Officer M ay bac kw ards. Bo th3

men fell to the g ro und. W hen app ell ant g ot up , he charg ed atOfficer M ay
. Off ic er M ay tes ti fied appe ll ant “g ra bbed on to myholst er for m y gun and t he hol ste r for my pepper spray .” He st ated appel lan t als o grabbed “ on to p of mypepper sp ra y ” and “on top of

my gun” and starte d shakin g his gun belt. He said appe llant w as “try ing to shake myw eapons l oose or

shake mygun beltof

f.” Off ic er

May tri ed to push him aw ay and tr ied “t o k nock

hi s h and off” to tak e outhi s pe p p e r spray , butappel lan t “ str ipp ed” the pepper spray outo f O f f icer M ay ’s hand. Ap pel lan t c onti nued t o s hake Off ic er M ay ’s g un bel t,
caus ing the hol st e r to c ome uns napped and t he g un to fall to the g ro und. Officer M ay tes ti fied th at atthi s p oin t, he had no c hoi ce but “ to pu nch him in the head t o g et hi m off of me.” Ap pel lan t respon ded by punch ing Officer M ay two or three ti mes i n the face, caus ing pain to Of

f icer May . Appe llant tried to p unch h im again, b ut Of f icer May hit app ellant ’s arm
w it h hi s fla shl ig ht an d tol d hi m to “ ‘G et ba ck .’ ” Eac h ti me Off ic er M ay bl ock ed a punch by hitti ng appel lan t’ s a rm w it h the flas hli g ht, appel lan t woul d tak e a ste p towards him, ca usi ng Off ic er M ay to keep ste ppi ng bac kw ards unti l he w as in the s treet. At that poi nt, Off ic er Ma y st ru ck hi m in the head w it h the flas hli g ht. Appel lan t t hen ran to w ard hi s h ouse and t ri ed to g et i nsi de. Off ic er M ay pi ck ed up his pepper

sp ra y and fire ar m and t ri ed to g ra b hi m. A ppel lan t t ri ed to punc h hi m in the face, butOfficer

M ay manag ed to spray

appell ant’ s face w it h “a li ttl e bit” of pepper sp ra y in his faci al area. Und aunted, appell ant pic ked up a ladd er
. Off ic er M ay took co v er , and appel lan t t hrew

i t i n hi s g eneral direct ion

. W hen appel lan t heard oth er pol ic e c ars p ull up, he l aid dow n. The other off ic ers h elp ed Officer

M ay handc uff

appel lan t. After the i nci dent, appel la n t was taken to t he pol ic e s tati on w here he g av e two breath spec imens , bot h ofT he t r i al cour t adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence St at e’ s exhi bi t 14, w hi ch i s a st i pul at i on o fev i dence st at i ng t hat 2 appel l ant “ on Ju ne 6 t h, 200 4, had a br eat h al cohol conce nt r at i on of

. 116 and . 112” “g r am s ofal cohol per 210 L i te rs o f b re a th

. . . .”

Because o f t he angl e at whi ch O ff i cer M ay par k ed hi s car , t he ca m er a on l y capt ur ed t he a udi o po r t i on 3 oft he e ncount erbet ween ap pel l ant and O ff i cerM ay
. T he p r osecut orpl ay ed t he v i deot ape t o t he j ur y , and O ff i cerM ayexpl ai ned t o t he j ur y what t heywer e he ar i ng o n t he v i deot ape. 4 w hich ind icated thathe w as into x icated

. The t ri al court ad mitt ed int o evidence State ’s 2
ex hib it2, w hic h i s t he v ide otape from O ff ic er M ay ’s i n- car

v ide o c amera
. 3 Off ic er M ay tes tified hi s p epper

sp ra y i s referred to as a “ chemi cal di spens ing dev ic e.” He stat ed that but for appell ant shak ing his belt , the g un woul d nothav e fall en to the g ro und. He als o tes ti fied appel lan t “n ev er had [the g un] in his hand, but t h e pe pper spray he actua lly

g rabb ed o n to it w hen he strippe d it out o f my han d. Buthe didn ’t maint ain pos ses si on of i t, he k nock ed i t outof myhand by actual ly g ra bbi ng i t.” B. App ellant ’

s Eviden ce Appel lan t’ s brother , Franci sc o R ic o, t est ified appel lan t c ame to his hous e on June 6, 20 04 to w atch a televised boxing ma tch. Francisco an d ap pellan t each drank “prob ably

. . . four or fiv e beers at t he mos t.” H e s aid appel lan t di d notg enerall y resi st author ity

and
w as no t an aggressive person. W hen app ellantlef t Francisco’s hou se, ap pellan t “w as just fine,” “ w alk ing as a regul a r p e rso n,” and “h appy as he c an be. ” After the inc ide nt, Franci sc o tal ked to app e lla n t a b out w hat h ad happ ened. W hen defense co unsel as ked Franci sc o, “You sai d y our brother pul led int o the dr iv ew ay
. W hat did he t ell y ou happ ened
next?” , F ra nci sc o repl ied , “ [H ]e was sti ll i nsi de th e c ar and that cop came a nd s tar t [ si c] to beat the g las s” and “[ t]hen he sta rt[sic] open the door and he g ot ha ndcuffed and th en he sta rt ed g etti ng beat

. . . . Star ted g etti ng beatby

the off ic er .” A p p e l l a n tt e s t i fi e d t h a ta ft e r d r i n k i n g fo u r o r fi v e b e e rs a th i s b ro t h e r ’ s h o u s e , h e l e ft “close to m idnight.” He did notse e t h e p olice car beh ind him until he was close to his5

home. W hen he pul led i nto h is dr ivewa y, h e d id not ro ll dow n hi s w ind ow bec ause the police o f f icer “was hittin g the w indo w w ith tha t stick thatthey carry .” This scared him, so he s tar ted h onki ng hi s h or n to ale rt his w ife, w ho w as in the h ouse. H e “ saw the bar re l of the g un on the g las s” and heard the off ic er tel l him to g et out of t he c ar
. W hen t he officer poi nted the g u n a t a p p e llant’s face, he th oug ht t he officer w as g oin g to ki ll hi m. W hen appel lan t g ot ou t of hi s car w it h his hands behind him, Off ic er May hit hi m on t he nec k a nd “t ack led ” him. Off ic er

M ay fell on t op of hi m, and w hil e appel lan t was face dow n, O ff ic er Ma y co nti nued t o hi t hi m. At one point, appell ant g ot aw ay f ro m Off ic er

May , but Officer Ma y g ra bbed hi m and be at hi m some more. Appel lan t den ied throw ing the lad der at Off ic er

M ay , and he d eni ed th at he took the “M ace” from hi m. H e tes ti fied he knew Officer M ay w as a pol ic e off ic er

and that he “ nev er han dled [Of

f icer May ’s] g un” an d ne v er tried to pull the gun f rom its h olster. W hen defense coun sel asked him, “Did y ou unla wf ully t hen a nd the re in ten tiona lly , knowing or recklessly
caus e bodi ly

i nju ry to [Officer

May]?” , he sai d, “N o.” He al so deni ed that he eit her took or attem pted to t ake w it h forc e Officer M ay ’s firear m or

personal protecti on c hemic al dis pensi ng dev ic e. After appel lan t w as rel eased f ro m pol ic e c ust ody , he w ent t o Bay lor M edi cal C enter for treatment and lea rn e d t h a t his “ brain w as swoll en.” That w eeken d, he retur ned t o Baylor M edica l Ce n t e r fo r brain surgery and spen t abo ut two w eeks in th e ho spital. He tes ti fied th at t his i nju ry

w as the resul t of hi s b ein g hi t on the h ead. Dur ing appel lan t’ s d irectex aminat ion , defense couns el pla y ed St ate’ s e x hib it2 ( the
v ide otape from Off ic er Ma y ’s i n- car v ide o c amera ) to t he j ur y , and appel lan t ex pla ine d to the j ur y w hat t hey

w ere hear ing on t he v ide otape.6

After appel lan t t est ified , t he defense cal led Officer M ay as a witne ss
. W hen defense c ounse l ask ed Officer M ay , “ Do y ou remember any ti me pul ling you r gun out te l l i n g h i m [ a p p e l l a n t ] t o g e t o u t ? ” , h e re p l i e d , “ N o , s i r
. ” W h e n d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ask ed Off ic er M ay , “ W hen he g ot ou t [ of the c ar] was his sp eech sl ur re d, bl o o dshotey es?” , he
re pli ed, “ Y es, si r. ” W hen defense couns el ask ed him, “D id [appel lan t]

. . . ev er g ra b y our fire ar m at a ny

ti me?”, he repl ied , “ [N ]o, si r. ” Officer M ay denied h e us ed more forc e tha n neces sar

y to ar re st appel lan t. On re- directex aminat ion , w hen t he prosec utor as ked Off icerM ay , “ Di d the defendant g ra b y our

pepper sp ra y w hen it w as on y our

belt?, ” he sai d, “As i t was comi ng out o f the hol ste r he g ra bbed on to itand knoc ked itfrom my hand. ” Appel la n t’ s wife , T e re sa Rico , t e st if ie d ap p e lla n t re sp e ct e d au th o rity and that he was not a v iol ent p erson. Sh e had nev er seen him threaten any body and sai d he is not the k ind of person w ho would atta ck a police of f icer. II. D is cus si on A. Cr oss -E xam ina ti on of Of ficer M ay In i ss ue one, appell ant a rg ues the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by refusing to all ow defense couns el to c ro ss -e x amine Off ic er M a y a bout pr ior i nci dents i n w hic h the off ic er alle g edl y

used ex ces si v e force. Dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , defense co unsel as ked Of f icer May

the m e a n in g o f

the te rm “excessiv e force,” to which he said, “You use m ore force tha n ne cessary to ef fect an arrest.” W hen asked , “Isn’t tha t w hatoccurred in th is
cas e?” , he sta ted, “N o, si r, no, si r. ” Then, c ounse l ask ed hi m, “ Y ou woul dn’ t do anythi ng li ke that? ” To thi s, he re pli ed, “ No, I w oul d not .” Atthi s p oin t, defense c ounse l, outs ide theO ut si de t he j ur y ’ s pr esence, def ense counsel que st i oned O ff i cerM ayas f ol l ows: 4 C ounsel : O ff i cer M ay s [ si c] , hav e t her e been com pl ai nt s f i l ed agai nst y ou f or t he u se

of e x c es s i ve fo rce an d c on du c t un be c om i ng of a p ol i c e o ffi c er? O ff i cerM ay : Excessi v e f or ce, y es; I don ’ t bel i ev e con duct unb ecom i ng. C o u n s e l: O n J u n e 4 th

— A p r il 4 th o f 1 9 9 9 , d o y o u r e c a l l a c la im a n t m a d e — a c la im

m ad e a ga i ns t y ou , fi l ed w i t h t he G arl an d P ol i c e D ep art m en t , for ex c es s i ve f or ce con duct unb ecom i ng o fan off i cerand pr of ane l an guage , an ev ent whi ch occu r r ed Apr i l 4t h, 199 9? O ffi c er M ay : I ca nn ot rec al l an eve nt, no , si r. C o u n s e l : B u t i t o c c u rr e d , c o rr e c t? O ff i cerM ay : I fi t ’ s i n m y f i l e t hen I woul d sayy es, butI don ’ t know f orsur e. C o u n s e l : O k a y . It w a s in yo u r fil e w h e n yo u w e re a s k e d a b o u t i t i n y o u r d e p o s i ti o n , c o rr e c t? O ff i c e r M a y : C a n y o u re p e a t? C ounsel : I t was i n y ourfi l e and i t w as ask ed, t hose quest i ons wer e asked of y ou o n y ourdep osi t i on? O ff i cer M ay : T hey asked quest i ons about cer t ai n ev ent s, but I don’ t r em em bert he d at es

or t i m es , co nten t of ea c h c om pl ai nt. I do n’ t rem em be r. C ounsel : Yes, si r
. Y ou d on’ t r ecal l anyof t he d et ai l s abo ut t hat ev ent t hough ? O ff i c e r M a y : C o rr e c t. C ounsel : O k ay
. But t her e was a com pl ai nt m ade agai nst y ou i n r egar d t o an a ct i on

t hat occur r ed o n Novem ber15t h of 200 1, wi t h an i ndi v i du al w ho s e na m e w a s M r. R i v e ra , w i th th e u s e o f e x c e s s i v e fo rc e
. D o y o u re c a l l th a t? O ffi c er M ay : N o, s i r. C ounsel : So y ou wer e qu est i oned aboutt hat on y ourdep osi t i on? O ffi c er M ay : Ye s , si r. C ou ns el : F rom y ou r f i l e t ha t w as furni s he d t o M r. E l l i s co rr ec t , si r? O ff i c e r M a y : C o rr e c t. C ounsel : And next quest i on was, t her e was a com pl ai nt m ade agai nst y ou i n an ev ent

occur r ed o n M ar ch 2n d— M ar ch 23 r d of 200 2, i n r egar d t o a M r
. C ast i l l o, a lle g in g e x c e s s iv e f o r c e
. D o yo u r e m e m b e ro rr e c a ll t h a t c o m p la in t a t a ll? O ffi c er M ay : N o, s i r. C ounsel : But i n f act i t was f i l ed and y ou wer e quest i oned about i t on y ourdep osi t i on 7 ju ry ’s p re s e n c e , a s k e d h im a b o u tp ri o r i n c id e n t s in wh ic h h e a ll e ge d ly u s e d e xc e s s ive 4fr o m y o u r p e rs o n a l fi l e fro m th e p o l i c e d e p a rtm e n t? O ff i c e r M a y : C o rr e c t. At t hi s poi nt , coun sel t ol d t he t r i al cour t , “I bel i ev e t hose ar e per t i nent and re l ev ant t o show t he co ur se ofcond uct i n t hi s case, and I woul d l i k e t o br i ng t hat up i n f r ont of t he j ury
. ” T o t hi s, t he t r i al cour t asked,

“ T h a t’s w h a t yo u ’r e g o in g to a s k h im ? A fte rc o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d a ff ir m a tiv e ly, th e tr ia l c o u r t d e n ie d c o u n s e l’s re q u e s t. W e no t e de f ense counsel di d no t off ert he p r off er ed t est i m onyf ori m peachm ent pur poses.

5 8 force. Coun sel told the trial court th e prof fered testim ony w as “relev antto show the course of cond uct in this case, a nd I w ould like to bring th at up in fro nt of the jury.” Th e trial court d e n ie d co u n s e l’ s re qu e s tt o le tt h e ju ry h e a r t h e p ro f fe re d t e s t im o n y. 5 1. Standa rd

of Rev iew a nd App licable Law W hen conside ring a trial court’s ruling on th e ad mission of ev iden ce, w e “mu st det ermin e w het her the trial court ab used its discretion.” W il lov er v. Sta te , 70 S.W .3d 8 41, 845 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. “W e c onsi der the ru li ng i n l ig ht of w hat wa s b efore t he tr ial court at the time the ruling w as ma de and upho ld the trial court’s judgme nt if it li es w ithin the zone of

reason able disagreem ent .” Bi ll odeau v . St ate , 27 7 S. W .3 d 34 , 39 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2009)

. “Relev antfacts th at occu rred b e fo re t he wi tne ss testif ied attrial are adm issible if perm itted b y

t he Rules of

E v iden ce or the Conf ronta tion Clau se.” Id

. at 40. “G enerall y , t he ri g ht t o presentev ide nce and t o c ro ss -e x amin e wit n ess es under the Si xth A mendment doe s not conf lict w ith correspo ndin g rig hts unde r state ev iden tiaryrules.” Ham m er v. Sta te , No. PD-078 6-08 , 200 9 W L 92 856 1, *10 -11 (Te x . Crim. App . April 8, 200 9). “Thu s, mo st q uest ion s c oncer nin g cros s- ex aminat ion m ay be re sol v ed bylooki ng to the Tex as Rul es of Ev iden ce.” Id . at*11

.S e e a ls o Z a v a la v . S ta te , N o. 13 -98 -39 5-C R , 2 00 4 W L 49 11 32 a t *3 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i , M ar. 6 11 , 20 04 , no pe t

. ) ( m em op
. , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). 9 2. Ana lysis Tex as Ru le of

Ev ide nce 401 defin es re lev ant e v ide nce as “e v ide nce hav ing any tendency to make the ex is tenc e of an y fact that is of cons eq uence to the d eter minat ion of the action more proba ble or less prob able than it would be w ithou t the ev iden ce.” T EX
. R. E V ID . 401

. Ev ide nce must be materi al and proba ti v e to be c onsi dered rele v ant. Miller v. State , 36 S. W .3d 503 , 507 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 20 01). In ord er for evi den ce to be mat erial, it“ ‘mus t be show n to be address ed to the proof o f a mater ial proposi ti on, i .e., ‘ any fact t hat is of conse que n c e t o t he d ete rmina tion o f the act ion.’ ‘If

the evidence is offered to help prove a propo sition w hich is not a m atte r in i ssue, the evidence is i mm ate rial.’” Id

. If the
ev ide nce is mater ial , t he proponentmusta lso s h o w “t he ev ide nce is probati v e, i .e., the proffered ev ide nce must tend to make the e x is tenc e of the fact ‘ more or l ess probabl e tha n i t w ou l d be w i th ou t th e ev iden ce.’” Id . If the pro pon entestab lishes tha t the ev iden ce is both mater ial and probati v e, t hen t he ev ide nce is admi ss ibl e unl ess it i s o ther w is e bar re d by the Con sti tuti on, s tatut es, or o th e r ru les of ev ide nce. SeeT EX
. R. E V ID . 402

. “ It is 6 impo rt a n t , w h e n d e t e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e i s re l e v a n t , t h a t c o u rt s e x a mi n e the purp ose for w hich the e v iden ce is being introdu ced. ” Layton v . St ate , N o. P D- 408- 07, 2 009 W L 25008 0 at *12 (Tex . C ri m. App. F eb. 4 , 200 9)

. Here, c ounse l tol d the t rial co urt t he proffered te sti mony

w as “rele v ant t o s how

the course of conduct i n thi s c ase.
. . . ” Ev ide nce of a vic ti m ’s “p erti nent charact er trait ” offered by

the acc used maybe admis si ble under

R ule 404( a) (1 ). Evan s v . St ate , 8 7 6 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 3 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 1994, no pet .) ; seeT EX
. R. E V ID . 404 (a)( 1 ). Rule 40 5(a) provides, in relevant part: “In all cases in w hich evidence of a person ’s characte r or character trait isI n Evan s, t he d ef endan t was con v i ct ed o fagg r av at ed a ssaul t on a po l i ce o ffi c er, th e v i ct i m bei ng 7 O ff i c e r S o n s e l

. E v a n s v . S ta te , 8 7 6 S .W .2 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 1
- 6 2 ( T e x . A p p .– T e x a r k a n a 1 9 9 4 , n o p e t. ) . D u r in g tr ia l, t he d ef endan t soug ht t o i nt r oduce f ourr epor t s base d on com pl ai nt s byci t i z ens t hat O ff i cerSonsel had used e x c e s s i v e o r u n n e c e s s a ry fo rc e , o r h a d c a u s e d p h y s i c a l i n ju ry. Id . a t 4 6 4

. T h e d e fe n d a n t a rg u e d th e re p o rts wer e ad m i ssi bl e be cause t heywoul d he l p pr ov e O ff i cerSonsel had a gg res si v e t enden ci es an d was t he a g g re s s o r i n th e p re s e n t c a s e a n d th a t t h e d e fe n d a n t a c te d i n s e l f- d e fe n s e
. Id

. I n h ol di ng t he repo rt s w ere not adm i ssi bl e, t he a ppel l at e cou r t st at ed, “ [ T ] hese r epor t s consi s t o f rec i t at i ons o fspeci f i c i nst ances of S on s el ’ s co nd uc t an d n ot op i ni on or r ep utat i on t es t i m on y . ” Id

. T he co ur t f ur t herst at ed, “ [ T ] he j us t i fi cat i on th e o r y o fs e lf
- d e f e n s e d o e s n o t in q u ir e in to a s a n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t, th e c h a r a c te r o f th e v ic tim

. T h u s , s p e c if ic i ns t an c es of S on s el ’ s co nd uc t w ere no t ad m i s s i bl e t o p rove ch ara c t er. ” Id

. 10 adm issible, proo f

may be ma de by testim ony as to rep uta tion o r by testim ony in the form of an opin ion. . . .” T EX
. R. E V ID . 405 (a). How ever, “ [r]ules 40 4(a) and 405 (a) specif ically disallow particu lar acts of the victim to dem onst rate cha racter.” Tate v . St ate , 981 S.W .2d 189 , 192 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98). Rule 40 5(b) provides that“in cases in w hich a pe rson’s chara cter or charact er trait is an essen tial ele m e n t of a charge, claim or de fense , proof may be ma de o f

specif ic instan ces of

t he perso n’s cond uct.” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 405( b)

. Appel lan t’ s v ersi on of the ev ents
wa s t h a tO f

f ic e r M a y u s e d e xc e s s ive fo rc e t o a rr e s th im a n d t h a ta n y a c t io n h e m a y h a ve tak en ag ain st Off ic er

May w as in sel f-defense. H ow ev er , t he “ theor y of sel f-defense do es notinquire i nto , as an essen tial elem ent , the characte r of the victim.” Evan s , 876 S.W .2d at 46 4; Tate , 981 S.W .2d a t 192 -9 3. Thus, becau se Off ic er M ay ’s ch aract er

or ch aract er traitw as not a n es sent ial el ement of a c harg e, c lai m, or d efense, a ppel lan t c oul d not int ro duce ev ide nce of spec ifici nst ances of Off ic er M ay ’s co nduct

. SeeT EX
. R. E V ID
. 405( b) ; Evan s , 876 S.W .2d a t 464

. 7 Acc ordin g ly , t he tri al cour t di d noter r in conc lud ing thatthe proffered te sti mony w as not mat er ial bec ause itdi d notaddres s a ny fact o f impor

tanc e to the o utc ome of the a cti on. Mi ller , 36 S.W .3 d a t 5 0 7 . Thus, t he proffered te sti mony i s n ot rele v ant, and, therefore,R ul e of Ev i dence 402 pr ov i des t hat “ [ a] l l r el ev ant ev i dence i s a dm i ssi bl e, excep t as ot herwi se 8 p r o v id e d b y C o n s tit u tio n , b y s ta tu te , b y th e s e r u le s , o rb y o th e rr u le s p r e s c r ib e d p u r s u a n t t o s ta tu to r y a u th o r ity. E vi de nc e w hi c h i s no t rel eva nt i s i na dm i s s i bl e.” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 402

. 11 ina dmis si ble

. SeeT EX
. R. E V ID . 401 , 402 ; Mi ller , 36 S.W .3d a t 507

. 8 3. Confro nta tion Clau se To the e xtent appel lan t c lai ms t he Con frontat ion Cl ause per mits the jur y to he ar the proffered te sti mony , we not e appel lan t di d no t a rgu e to the t ri al cour t t he C onfronta ti on Cl ause re q uired admi ss ion of the e v ide nce. See R eyna v. State , 168 S.W .3d 1 73, 1 79- 80 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)( hol din g thatthe appel lat e court er re d i n rev ersi ng a c onv icti on on Conf ronta tion Clau se grounds b ecau se de fend antd id not“clea rly a rticulate ” to trial court tha t the Conf ronta tion Clau se de ma nde d ad mission of the evidence in q uest ion). W e hol d tha t w hether

the proffered te sti mony w as admis si ble i s at l eastsu bje ct to
re asona ble di sag re ement. Thus, the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on b y d eny ing appel lan t t he oppo rt uni ty to cross -e x amine Off ic er M ay aboutthe pr ior

al leg ed i nst ances of ex ces si v e forc e. Iss ue one is ov er ru led

. B. Iss ues Per

tai nin g to Co nvicti

on for Atte m

pti ng to Take aWeapon fr oma Peace Off

ic er 1. Cha rg e Er

ro r In iss u e two, ap p e lla n t a rgu e s t h a t h e was e gre gio u sly h a rm e d be ca u se th e ch a rge did not inc lud e an ins tr uct ion on the sta tutor y defense under secti on 38.14( d) of the pena l code, w hic h w as ra is ed by the ev ide nce. SeeT EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38.14( d)

. W hen
ev alu ati ng ch arg e er ro r, w e first deter mine w hether there w as er ro r in the c harg e. A l m a n za
v. State , 686 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 74 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1985)( op. o n reh’ g ). I f so, “ the n ext s tep is to make a n ev ide nti ar y rev iew

. . . as w ell as a rev iew of any othe r par

t of t he record as
a w hole w hich m ay illumina te th e actu al, no t just the oretica l, harm to the accuse d.” Id

.12

Sect ion 38 .14 (b) of

the pe nal cod e provides tha t a perso n com mits an of fense “if the p erson in ten tiona lly o r kno w ingly

a nd w ith force take s or attem pts to take f rom a pea ce off ic er , . . . t he officer ’s firear m, ni ght st ick , stun g un, o r personal protecti on c hemic al dispe nsing device w ith the inten tion of harm ing the of f icer or a third pe rson.” T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 38. 14(b ). Section (d) provides that“It is a defense to prose cution und er this
secti on that the defendant took or attempt ed to tak e the w eapon from a pea ce off ic er , . . . w ho was using force against th e de fend antor anot her in excess of the am oun t of

force perm itted bylaw .” Id . § 38. 14(d ). a. W as App ellant

Entitled to a Self-Def

ense Instructio n Unde r Section 38.1 4(d)? Th e d e fe n d a n t b e a rs t h e b u rd e n o f p ro d u c i n g s o me e v i d e n c e t h a t ra i s es s e l fdefense. Zul

ian i v. State, 97 S. W .3d 5 89, 5 9 4 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ; Saxton v . St ate , 804 S .W .2d 9 10, 9 13 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 1). Ad efense is raised if t here is ev iden ce in the record maki ng a pr ima facie cas e for the defense. “A pr ima facie cas e is that ‘mi nimum quantu m of

ev iden ce nece ssary to sup port a ratio nal inferen ce tha t [an ] allegation of fact is true.’” Shaw v. St

ate , 24 3 S. W .3 d 64 7 , 6 5 7 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g Tom pki ns
v. State , 774 S.W .2d 195, 20 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1987) ). Therefore, a defense is rais ed by the ev iden ce if

there is “some evidence, f rom any source , on each eleme nt of the de fense tha t, if believed by the jury , w ould supp ort a ration al inferen ce tha t the elem entis tr ue. ” Id

. at 65 7- 58. “I f a defense i s suppor ted bythe ev ide nce, then the defendant is enti tl ed to an ins tr uct ion on t hat d efense, e v en i f the e vide n ce suppo rt ing the defense i s weak or cont ra dicted, and ev en i f the tr ial co urt is of t he opi nio n that the e v ide nce is not credi ble .” Id . at658. “ But, the ev ide nce must be such that itw il l suppo rta rati onal j ur y findi ng ” w it h
re sp ectto each ele ment of the defense. Id

. W e v i ew th e ev i de nc e i n th e l i ght most fa v o ra b l e t o t h e d e fe n d a n t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o ra i s e t h e i s s u e o f s e l f-13

defense. Pr

eston v . St ate , 756 S.W .2d 2 2, 24 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1988, pet. ref ’d). As a g eneral matter , to b e ent it led to a defensi v e j ust ific ati on i nst ru cti on, a defend antmustadm it the c o n d u c tch arged in the indictm entand then of fer evi den ce jus ti fyi ng the condu ct. Shaw, 243 S .W .3d a t 659 (ho lding th at “a d efensive instruction is app ropriate only w hen t h e d e fend ant ’s defensive ev iden ce esse ntially adm its to every ele ment of the offense inc lud ing the cul pabl e mental st ate, but i nter poses the jus ti ficat ion to ex cus e the other

w is e cr imin a l co n d u ct” ); Young v. State , 9 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 8 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1999) ; W

it her s v . St ate , 994 S.W .2d 7 42, 7 45 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1999, pet. re f’d)

. Here, ap pellan t den ied th e allegation s in the ind ictme nt. T here fore, on ly the State ’s
ev ide nce coul d pos si bly hav e rais ed th e defensi v e i ss ue. Johns on v. State , 715 S.W .2d 402 , 405 -06 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 1st Dist.] 198 6, pet

. ref ’d). In his af f idavit, which is part of the St ate’ s rebutt al ev ide nce, appell ant stat ed w hen he g ot out of hi s c ar , O ff ic er M ay beat him in th e h e a d with hi s b aton and t hrew hi m to t he g ro und. Officer M ay tes ti fied app ellant“g rabb ed o n to my holste r for my gun and the ho lster for my peppe r spray .” H e sta ted a ppel lan t al so g ra bbed “ on to p o f m y pepper sp ra y ” and “ on to p of myg un” and sta rt ed s haki ng hi s g un bel t. He sai d appel lan t w as “t ry ing to s hake myw eapons l oose or sh a ke myg un bel t off.” Off ic er M ay tr ied to push him aw ay and tr ied “ to k nock

hi s h and off” to t ake out h is pepper sp ra y , butappel lan t “ str ipp ed” the pepper sp ra y out of his hand. Ap pe l l an t c on ti nu ed t o s ha k e Offi c er M ay ’ s g un b el t, c au s i ng t he h ol ster to c om e unsn app ed a nd th e gun to fall to the groun d. T his is some ev iden ce of Of f icer May ’s use of ex ces si v e forc e and of appell ant’ s a ttemptto tak e Officer Ma y ’s w eapons , re q uir ing the submi ss ion of the i nst ru cti on unde r secti o n 3 8 .14(d)

. SeeT EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . §S p e c if ic a lly, th e c h a r g e in s tr u c te d th e ju r y: 9 T he use of f or ce agai nst anot her i s not j ust i f i ed t o r esi st an ar r est orsear ch t hat t he d e f e n d a n t k n o w s is b e in g m a d e b y a p e a c e o ff ic e r , o rb y a p e r s o n a c tin g in a p e a c e o ff ic e r ’s pr esen c e an d at hi s di r ect i on, ev en t hough t he a r r est orsear ch i s unl awf ul , unl ess t he r esi st ance i s j ust i f i ed u ndert he f ol l owi ng ci r cum st ances: T he u se of

f or ce t o r esi st an ar r est orsear ch i s j ust i f i ed: (1 ) i f, b e fo re th e d e fe n d a n t o ff e rs a n y re s i s ta n c e , t h e p e a c e o ff i c e r u s e s o r a tte m p ts 14 38. 14(d ). Ev en th oug h the evi dence suppor ted an inst ru cti on under secti on 38. 14( d) , we do not fin d appel lan t s uffered eg re g iou s h ar m. W hen, as in thi s cas e, an acc used compl ain s of an un ob

j ecte d- to er ror i n th e c ha rg e, “ he w i l l ob ta i n a rev ers al on l y i f th e er ror i s so egregi ous a nd crea ted such ha rm tha t he ‘ha s not had a fa ir and imp artial trial’—in short ‘egreg ious ha rm.’” A l

m a n za , 686 S.W .2d at 171. The e rror must“ g o to the v er

y bas is of the c ase, depr iv e the ac cus ed of a v alu abl e r ig ht,” or “ v it all y af fect his defensi v e the or y .” Id . at172. ( Inter nal ci tati on omi tted)

. The deg re e of har m, s uff ic ien tl y se ri ous to be ca ll ed “e g re g i o u s , ” i s p re s e n t w h e n e v e r a re v i e w i n g c o u rt fi n d s t h e c a s e fo r c o n v ic ti on or pun ishm entw as ac t ually ma de clea rly and sig nif icantly more pe rsuasive by the error. Sa u n de rs v. State, 81 7 S. W .2 d 68 8, 69 2 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p. 19 91 )

. “ Eg reg i ou s ha r m is a dif f icult stan dard to prove and m ust be dete rmine d on a cas e -b y-c a s e ba sis.” Ellison v. State, 86 S.W .3d 226 , 227 (Tex. Cr im. A p p
. 2 002 ). The actua l degree of harm is deter mined “i n l ig ht of

the enti re ch arg e, t he s tate of the ev ide nce, i ncl udi ng the cont est ed is sues and w eig ht of probati v e ev ide nce, the arg ument of c ounse l, and any othe r re lev ant informa tion rev eale d by the reco rd o f t he trial as a w hole .” A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d at 17 1. b. HarmAnalysis (I ). Enti reChar ge T he ch arge included a self-defense instructio n und er pen al code section 9.31 (b), 9t o use gr eat erf or ce t han necessar y t o m ake t he a r r est orsear ch; and ( 2 ) w h e n a n d t o t h e d e g r e e th e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s th e f o r c e is i m m edi at el y necessar y t o pr ot ect hi m sel faga i nst t he p eace off i cer ’ s use orat t em pt ed u se o fg r e a te rf o r c e th a n n e c e s s a r y.

“ R easona bl e be l i ef ” m eans a be l i eft hat woul d be hel d byan or di nar y and pr udent p e rs o n i n th e s a m e c i rc u m s ta n c e s a s th e d e fe n d a n t.

N ow, t her ef or e, i fy ou b el i ev e f r om t he e v i dence bey ond a r easona bl e do ubt t hat t he def endan t , Pedr o T or r es R i c o, res i st ed a n ar r est orsear ch t hat t he d ef endan t knew was bei ng m ade bya peace off i cer , nam el y M

. M ay , r egar dl ess of whet herornott he a r r est or sear ch was u nl awf ul , bygr abbi ng o rbyshak i ng M

. M ay ’ s f i r ear m orper sonal pr ot ect i on chem i cal di spensi ng d ev i ce, and y ou f ur t herf i nd o r h ave a r easona bl e do ubt t her eof , t hat b e fo re th e d e fe n d a n t o ff e re d a n y r e s i s ta n c e , i f a n y , th e p e a c e o ff i c e r u s e d o r a tte m p te d to us e g rea t er forc e t ha n n ec es s ary t o m ak e t he arres t or se arc h, a nd y ou fu rt he r fi nd , o r have a r easona bl e do ubt t her eof , t hat t he d ef endan t r easona bl y bel i ev ed t hat t he for ce when and t o t he d egr ee u sed, i fi t was, was i m m edi at el y nece ssar y t o pr ot ect hi m sel faga i nst t he p eace off i cer ’ s use orat t em pt ed use ofgr eat erfo r ce t han necessar y , t hen y ou wi l l f i nd i n f av orof th e d e f e n d a n t’s p le a o fs e lf
- d e f e n s e a n d f in d th e d e f e n d a n t n o t g u ilty.

Ifyo u f in d a n d b e lie v e f r o m t h e e v id e n c e b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t a t t h e tim e and pl ace i n qu est i on t he p eace off i cer , M

. M ay , di d not use orat t em pt t o use gr eat erf or ce th a n w a s n e c e s s a r y to e ff e c t t h e a r r e s t o rs e a r c h o fth e d e f e n d a n t, o rth a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d id no t reas on ab l y be l i eve t he force us ed by t he de fen da nt, i f an y , w as i m m ed i atel y ne c es s ary t o pr ot ect hi m sel faga i nst t he pe ace o ff i cer ’ s use orat t em pt ed u se of gr eat erf or ce t han n e c e s s a ry, th e n y o u w i l l fi n d a g a i n s t t h e d e fe n d a n t o n h i s p l e a o f s e l f- d e fe n s e
. Speci f i cal l y , t he ch ar ge st at ed: “ T he pr osecut i on has t he b ur den ofpr ov i ng t he d ef endan t gui l t y and 10 it m u s t d o s o b y p r o v in g e a c h a n d e v e r y e le m e n t o fth e o ff e n s e c h a r g e d b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t a n d if i t fa i l s to d o s o , y o u m u s t a c q u i t t h e d e fe n d a n t” 15 (c )( 1) , and ( c) (2 ). SeeT EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 9 .3 1 (b ), ( c) (1 ), ( c) (2 ). F urther more, the charg e: (1 ) ins tr uct ed and appl ied the law of the p arti cul ar

offense to t he facts of the c ase; (2 ) cor re ctl y pla ced the burden on the S tate to prov e eac h el ement of the offense bey ond
a reaso nab le dou bt; and (3) i nstruct ed t h e jury app ellantw as no t required to prove his 10 inn ocenc e or

to produce anyev ide nce. The ap pli cat ion parag ra ph i ncl uded t he foll ow ing instructio n: “Unless y ou so f ind bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt, o r if y ou h ave a reason able dou bt th ereo f , y ou wi ll acq uit the defend ant of atte mp ting to take a w eap on f rom a pea ce off ic er and say by y our v erdict notg uil ty .” The charg e furt her i nst ru cte d the j ur

y that : “I n th e e ven t you ha ve a rea so n a b le do u b t a s t o th e de fe n d a n t’ s gu iltafte r co n sid e rin g all the evi dence befor

e y ou, and t hese ins tr

uct ion s , y ou w il l acq uithi m and s ay by y our v erdict not16

guilty .” ( em pha sis adde d). W e pres ume the jur

y foll ow ed the tr ial co urt’ s i nst ru cti ons. Res endi z v. Sta te , 112 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (ci ti n g Col bur n v . St ate , 966 S.W .2d 5 11, 5 20 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) ). W e c oncl ude t hat e v en thoug h the tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to charg e the jur

y under se cti on 38. 14( d) , t he c harg e as a w hol e adeq uatel y co nv ey ed to the jur y thati t was re q uired to ac q uitappell ant if ithad a reason abl e doubtthe Stat e fail ed to prov e al l ele ments of the offense. See Zul ian i, 97 S. W .3d a t 594 ( hol din g thatto meet i ts burden of persuas ion to show defendant did not act in sel f-defense, the S tate w as re q uired to prove its case be y ond a reason able dou bt). (i i)

. State of the E videnceand Con tes ted Iss ues Appel lan t t est ified thatOfficer M ay w as the a g g re ss or , t hat h e resi ste d Officer M ay becau se Off ic er

M ay co nti nued t o beathi m, tha t he feared for hi s life, and t hat a fter t he inciden t, he had to have br a in s u rg e ry . Th e Sta te con troverted ap pellan t's self-defense claim by show ing tha t app ellant charged at Of f icer May and atte mp ted to take his w eap ons. The S t a t e a l s o s h o w e d t h a t O ffi c e r M a y d i d n o t s t r i k e a p p e l l a n t u n t i l a ft e r a p p e l l a n thad dislodged Of

f icer May ’s pep per spray and his f irearm. W hen Of f icer May

pun ched him in the head, appel lan t res ponded by punchi ng Of

ficer May tw o or thre e ti mes i n the face. In
order to av oid bei ng punc hed ag ain , Of ficer M ay hi t hi m in the head w it h hi s fla shl ig ht. Off ic er M ay deni ed th at he us ed ex ces si v e forc e ag ain st appel la n t. After th e i nci dent, app ellan t gav e tw o brea th spe cime ns, w hich sho w ed h e w as into x icated . Th e jury 's deci si on tu rn ed on credi bil ity and in our v iew w as not influ enced by any er ro r in the c harg e. (i ii ). Ar gum ents of Cou nsel During cl osing argumen t, on e of the pro secut ors explained the law of self-defense to t he j ur y and arg ued app ell ant was not t ell ing the tr uth a bout w hat h a d h a p p e n ed andC ou ns el argu ed t ha t ap pe l l an t k no c k ed t he pe pp er s pra y fr om O ffi c er M ay ’ s ha nd “[ o]ut of se l f- 11 def ense f orG od’ s sake. T hat st uffi s nast y . O k ay ?” He f ur t herar gued:

So when y ou l ook a t t he assaul t of a publ i c ser v ant her e, t he u se of f or ce t o r esi st an ar r est ora sear ch i s j ust i f i ed i ft he p eace off i ceruses orat t em pt s t o use gr eat erf or ce t han necessar y t o m ake t he a r r est ort o t he degr ee t he def endan t re asonab l y bel i ev es. So i t ’ s a r e a s o n a b le b e lie fs ta n d a r d w h a t h e r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s o c c u r r in g to h im a t t h e t i m e in quest i on, and t her e’ s not hi ng h er e t hat woul d sho w t hi s m an ev er , everat anyt i m e ha d car e, cust odyand cont r ol , orat t em pt ed t he ca r e, cust odyand cont r ol of t he weap ons orhi s M ace, ev er , o t h e rt h a n t o ke e p f r o m g e t t i n g s h o t a n d t o ke e p f r o m g e t t i n g s p r a y e d o n s o m et hi ng t hat was v er y m uch u ncal l ed for
. Peopl e ha v e an abso l ut e r i ght t o de f end t hem sel v es ev en agai nst a pol i ce off i ceri ft hey ’ r e usi ng e xcessi v e f or ce. * * * * So when and t o t he degr ee t he def endan t , ci t i z en a ccused, r easona bl y bel i ev ed t he f or ce i s i m m edi at el y nece ssar y t o pr ot ect hi m sel fagai nst t he peace off i cer ’ s use orat t em pt ed u s e o fg r e a te r f o r c e th a n n e c e s s a r y. R e a s o n a b le b e lie f m e a n s a b e lie f th a t w o u ld b e h e ld byan or di nar y and p rud en t p erso n, t hat ’ s y ou, t hat ’ s M r
. R i co [ appel l ant ] , i n t he sa m e or s i m i l a r c i rc u m s ta n c e a s th e d e fe n d a n t.

I n t hi s case y ou woul d hav e an absol ut e r i ght t o com e her e and com pl ai n aboutwhat w a s h a p p e n i n g a n d d e fe n d y o u rs e l f w h e n s o m e o n e ta k e s a d v a n ta g e o f y o u a s a c i ti ze n
. . .

. * * * * Because when y ou’ r e t r y i ng t o de f end y our sel f , y ou hav e an abso l ut e r i ght t o do so, as i n t he c ha rge , i f y ou be l i eve fr om t he evi de nc e t ha t the re i s e x c es s i ve forc e he re, w hi c h I be l i eve t her e i s a r easona bl e de duct i on f r om t he ev i dence t her e i s. T hen so w hat ? W as t her e an a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt o rw a s th e r e a s s a u lt o n a p u b lic s e r v a n t? T h e r e is n o t. O k a y? 17 that Off ic er

M ay w as tel li ng t h e t ru th ab out w hat h ad happ ened. The oth er prosec utor
arg ued t hat O ff ic er

M ay di d notus e ex ces si v e forc e. In t hei r cl osi ng arg uments , defense coun sel arg ued O ff ic er M ay w as the a g g re ss or and t hat a ppel lan t had tes ti fied tr uthfull y . One o f appell ant’ s c ounse l arg ued appel lan t had the r ig ht t o defend hi msel f aga ins t t he us e of ex ces si v e forc e. 11 (i v ). Other

R ele vant

Inf or m ati on The record does not re flectthe jur y w as co n f used about the a ppl ic abl e burden of proo f or abou t the State 's burde n to pro v e all e lem ent s of its case beyond a reason able doubt.18

c. Appl icati on Base d on our rev iew , app ellanthas no t shown the court’s failure to charge the jury under secti on 38.14( d) affect ed th e v er y bas is of the c ase, depr iv ed hi m of a v alu abl e r ig ht,
or v it all y affect ed hi s d efensiv e the or y . Ev en thoug h the charg e did not inc lud e the l aw of sel f-defense as i t per

tai ned t o s ect ion 38.1 4( d) , i t di d i nst ru ct the j ur y on t he el ements of self-defense w ith respe ct to pe nal cod e sectio n 9.3 1(b). App ellant relied on self-defense as a defe n sive t h eor

y , and urg ed th e j ur y to cons ide r the i ss ue of sel f-defense. Con si der ing the jur

y w as g iv en a g eneral ins tr uct ion on t he law of sel f-defense, and appel lan t di sc uss e d s e lf-d efense dur ing the tr ial , we c oncl ude app ell ant d id not s uffer eg re g iou s h ar m. I ss ue two i s o v er ru led

. 2. Suf ficiency of

the Evidence a. Leg al Suff

iciency In i ss ue four, appel lan t arg ues the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsufficie n t to prov e he int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

took or att empted t o take Off ic er May ’s f irear m. In is sue si x , he
arg ues the e v ide nce is l eg all y i nsuf fici ent t o prov e he int enti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

took or attempt ed to tak e the off ic er ’s personal protecti on c hemic al dis pensi ng dev ic e. (I ). Standa rd

of Rev iew In rev iew ing the leg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t a conv icti on, we v iew all the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to t he v erdict i n order to deter mine w hether

any ra ti onal tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e found the es sent ial e le m e n ts of the cr ime bey ond a
re asona ble doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U .S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ; Sanchez v. Sta te , 275 S.W .3d 9 01, 9 02 n. 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2009)

. This st andard g iv es f u ll pl ay to the
re spons ibi li ty

of the tr ier of fact to re sol v e confli cts in the tes ti mony , to weig h the ev ide nce, and to draw

reaso nabl e inferenc es from basicfact s t o ul ti mate facts

. Jacks on , 443 U .S.19

at 31 9. The tr ier

of factis the sol e judg e of the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 38.04 (Ver non 197 9) ; Ma rgra ves v. Sta te , 34 S.W .3d 9 12, 9 19 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. Thus, w hen per forming a l eg al- suffici ency rev iew , w e may

not re ev alu ate the w eig ht and credi bil ity of the ev ide nce and s ubst it ute o ur j udg ment for that of the fact -fin der

. Dewber ry v. Sta te , 4 S.W .3d 7 35, 7 40 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 9). W e mu st
re sol v e any

i ncons is tenc ies i n the ev ide nce in fav or of the ju dg ment. Cur

ry v. Sta te , 30 S.W .3d 394 , 406 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00). (i i)

. Appl icable Law Sect ion 38.14 of t he penal code prov ide s t hat a person commi ts an offense “ if the perso n inte ntion ally

or know ingly

and w ith force take s or attem pts to take f rom a pea ce off ic er , . . . t he officer ’s firear m,
. . . or personal protecti on chemi cal di spens ing dev ic e w it h the inten tion of

harm ing the of

f icer or a third person .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 38. 14(b ); Cha dwick v

. St ate , 277 S.W .3d 99, 106 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2009, no p et.)

. In t his ca se, the charge’s app lication paragraph instructed the jury to conv ict app ellant of the o f fe n s e if it foun d tha t he “inte ntion ally or know ingly , w ith force, at tem pt to take from a pea ce of f icer, to- w it ; M . M ay , t he of

ficer ’s f irear m or

perso nal protecti on chemic al di spens ing dev ic e, by g ra bbi ng or shak ing sai d fire ar m or personal protecti on or

ch emic al dis pensi ng dev ic e w it h t h e in t e n t io n o f

h a rm in g s a id o f

f ic e r,
. . . . ” T h e ju ry re t u rn e d a ge n e ra l ve rd ic to f gu il ty. Beca use the t er m “ tak e” i s n ot de fined i n the penal code, w e use the common, us ual meanin g of the word. See G ar ci a v . St ate , 887 S.W .2d 8 46, 8 59 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1999) (“ W ords w hic h are notdefined sta tutor il y are to be g iv en th eir

us ual m e a n in g s, and no spec ifici nst ru cti ons are nec ess ar y .” ). The mos t c ommonly recog niz ed defini ti ons of the
w ord “take ” are to “ get into one’s hands or into one’s possession , power, or control by force or stratagem ”; “to lay

or get a hold of w ith arms, han ds, or f ingers”; or “to seize or capt ureS e e a ls o P ry o r v . S ta te , nos. 05- 03-0 07 94 -C R , 05- 03- 00795
- C R , 200 4 W L 72 8867 at * 3 ( T ex. 12 App. –D al l as, Apr

. 6, 200 4, pet

. r ef ’ d) (n ot desi gnat ed f orpub. ) (d ef i ni ng “ t ake” i n con t ext of pen al code sect i on 38

. 14 an d rejec t i ng de fen da nt’ s argu m en t t ha t “t ak e” m ea nt t o “rem ove fr om t he ot he r’ s po s s es s i on ”)

. 20 physi c ally .” SeeW EBST ER ’ S 3 RD I NT ’ L D I C T I O N A R Y 232 9-30 (1981 ). An accuse d is 12 p re su m e d to kn o w th e of f ice r was a pe a ce of

f ice r if h e w a s wea rin g his un ifo rm or b a d ge or i f he had i denti fied hi mse lf a s a peace officer

to the a cc used. SeeT EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. § 3 8

. 1 4 ( c )

. P ro o f o f k n o w l e d g e o r i n t e n ti s a n i n fe re n c e t h a tm a y b e d ra w n b y

t he factfinder

both from di re ct ev ide nce and from ev ide nce of the c ircums tanc es sur ro undi ng the a ct. Guev

ar a v. St ate , 152 S.W .3d 4 5, 50 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004)( hol din g thati ntent
ma y b e i n fe r re d fro m c i rc u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u c h a s t h e w o rd s , a c t s , o r c o n d u c t of the
acc used) ; Br

own v. Sta te , 122 S.W .3d 794 , 800 (Te x . Crim. App

. 200 3) (holdin g tha t jury mayi nfer i ntentfrom a n y fa ct s in ev ide nce) ; W olf e v . St ate , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 6) (know ledge is inferen ce dr a wn b y t rier of fact f rom a ll ci rcumst ance s). Therefore, a jur

y ca n infer

kn ow led g e or

i ntentfrom t he acts, co nduct , and remark s o f the
acc used and f ro m the sur ro undi ng ci rc umstan ces
. Her nandez v. Sta te , 819 S.W .2d 8 06, 810 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ; LaPoi nt v . St ate , 750 S.W .2d 1 8 0, 18 2 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 198 6). (i ii ). Ana lysis In t his case, a rati onal j ur y co uld hav e det er mined the fol low ing from t he ev ide nce: (1 ) appel lan t was aw are Officer M ay w as a peac e off ic er ; ( 2) appel lan t g ra bbed on to Off ic er M ay ’s hol ste r for hi s g un and the h ols ter for his pepper

spray ; (3) appell ant g ra bbed on to p of hi s p epper

sp ra y and on to p of his gun and star ted s haki ng Officer

M ay ’s g un belt; (4) appellan t w as try ing to shake his w eap ons loose; ( 5) w hen Of f icer May tried to take out h is pepper

sp ra y , app ell ant g ra bbed on to itand “s tr ipp ed” i t outof h is h a n d ; ( 6) by shak ing Of

ficer May ’s gun belt , appell ant caus ed th e g un hol ste r to c ome uns napped and21

the g un to fall to the g roun d; (7) the p epp er spray atta ched t o O f f ic er May ’s g un b elt is
re ferred to as a “ chemi cal di spens ing dev ic e.” To the c ontrar

y , app ell ant’ s e v ide nce showed: (1 ) he did not attempt to ta ke Off ic er Ma y ’s firear m or

pepper sp ra y ; ( 2) he d id not resi st author ity and w as not a g g re ss iv e; ( 3)
w hen a p p e ll ant l eft his brother ’s hous e, ap pel lan t “ w as jus t fine, ” “walk ing as a reg ula r perso n,” and “happ y

as he can be”; an d (4) he w as not the kind of person w ho would atta ck a po lice of

f icer. After v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, w e c oncl ude t hat a ration al jury

could conclude app ellant , w ith force, at tem pte d to ta ke Of f icer May ’s firea rm or personal protecti on c hemic al dis pensi ng dev ic e by g ra bbi ng or

sh aking the firear m or pe rs on al p rot ecti on c he mi c al d i s pe nsing d ev i c e w i th t he i nt en ti on o f ha r mi ng h i m. Therefore, we hol d the ev ide nce is leg all y suff ic ien t to suppor

t the c onv icti on. Iss ues four and s ix are ov er ru led

. b. Factu al Suff

iciency In i ss ue fiv e , app ell ant a rg ues the e v ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o prov e he int enti onal ly

or kn ow ing ly

took or att empted t o tak e Officer Ma y ’s fire ar m. In is sue sev en, he arg ues the e v ide nce is fact ual ly insuffici ent to prov e he int enti onal ly or know ing ly

took
or att empted t o tak e the off ic er ’s personal protecti on c hemic al dis pensi ng dev ic e. (I ). Standa rd

of Rev iew In a factual -s uff ic ien cy

rev iew , the only

ques ti on to be answered is: “C onsi der ing all of the e v ide nce in a neutral li g ht, w as a j ur y rati onal ly

j ust ified i n findi ng g uil t beyond a
reaso nab le dou bt? ” Gr otti v. Sta te , 273 S.W .3d 273 , 283 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08). Ev ide nce can be deemed factual ly insuffici ent i n two w ay s: ( 1) “ the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the c onv icti on is ‘t oo w eak’ to suppo rt the factfinder ’s v erdict;” or (2 ) “c onsi der ing co nflicti ng22

ev ide nce, the factfinder ’s v erdict i s ‘ ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the evidence. ’” Laster

v. Sta te , 2 7 5 S .W .3 d 51 2 , 5 1 8 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g W ats on
v. State , 204 S.W .3d 404 , 414 -15 (Te x . Cri m . App . 200 6)). W hen a court of app eals condu cts a fact ual -s uff ic ien cy rev iew , t he c our

t mus t defer

to the j ur

y ’s findi ng s. Id . ( ci ti ng Cai n v . St ate , 958 S.W .2d 404 , 407 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). Th e cou rt of criminal app eals has “set out thre e ‘basic ground rules’ implem ent ing this standa rd.” Id . (qu o ti n g W ats on , 2 0 4 S. W .2 d at 414)

. “F irst, the appel lat e cour t must cons ide r all of t he ev ide nce in a neu tral lig ht, as opp osed to i n a lig ht most fa v orab le to th e v erdict.” Id . (c it in g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 ). Second , the app ellat e c o u rt“ m a y only f ind th e evidence factu ally insuf f icient w hen nece ssaryto ‘prevent ma nifest injust ice.’” Id . (qu o ti n g Cain , 958 S.W .2d
a t4 0 7 ). Al t h o u gh t h e ve rd ic t is a f fo rd e d le s s d e fe re n c e d u ri n g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n cy re vie w, an appe ll ate cour

t is not free to “o v er ri de the v erdict si mply becau se itdi sag re es w it h i t.” Id . (c it in g Cain , 958 S.W .2d a t 407 ). “ Third, t he appe ll ate c our t mus t ex pla in wh y t he
ev ide nce is too w eak to s uppor t t he v erdict or w hy

the confli cti ng ev ide nce g re atl y w eig hs against th e v erdict.” Id . (c it in g W ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 414 ). (i i)

. Ana lysis Af ter rev iew ing all of

the evidence in a n e u t ra l light, we conclude the evidence suppo rt ing the conv icti on i s n ot s o w eak that the j ur y ’s dete rmi nati on is cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust , or that the v erdict is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the
e v i d e n c e
. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 414 -17. T here fore, we hold the ev iden ce is factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he conv icti on. See i

d. Is sues fiv e and sev en are ov er ru led

. 4. Suff icien cy of the E videnceto Est abl ish theD efens e U

nder Sec ti on 38. 14(

d) In issue three, app ellantargues the evidence is suf f icient to estab lish the de fense provided for in section 38.1 4(d) of th e p ena l code. Specif ically , he argues th e evidence23

aff ir mati v ely

es tabl is hed t hat a ny

acti ons he may hav e tak en involv ing Off ic er Ma y ’s g un, pepper sp ra y , or

both w ere tak en i n defense of and i n react ion to Off ic er M a y’s u se of
ex ces si v e forc e. a. Law of Self-Defe nse Sect ion 38.1 4( d) prov ide s t hat “ [i ]t is a de fense to prosec uti on under thi s secti on th at the d efendant to ok or

att empted t o tak e the w eapon f ro m a p e a ce off ic er , . . . w ho was usi n g fo rc e a g a i n s t t h e d e fe n d a n t o r a n o t h e r i n e x c e s s o f t h e a mo u n t o f fo rc e per mitt ed by law .” T EX
. P EN AL C ODE
. A NN . § 38.14( d)

. A defendant has t h e burden of produci ng s o me e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt a s e l f- d e fe nse cl aim. Zuli ani , 97 S.W .3d a t 594

. Onc e the defendant produces t his ev ide nce, the Stat e has the burden of persuas ion to show the defendant did not act in sel f-defense. Zul ian i , 97 S.W .3d a t 594 ; Saxton , 804 S.W .3d a t 9 1 3 -1 4

. T o m e e tt h is b u rd e n , t h e S t a t e is n o tre qu ir e d t o p ro d u c e e vid e n c e t o d is p ro ve sel f-defense bu t onl y

to prov e its case bey ond a re asona ble doubt

. Zul ian i , 97 S.W .3d a t 594; Saxton , 804 S.W .2d a t 913

. “W hen a jur y finds t h e d e fe n d a n t gui lty , t here i s a n imp licit fin ding against the defensive theo ry .” Zul ian i , 97 S.W .3d a t 594 ; Saxton , 804 S.W .2d a t 914

. b. Standa rd

s o f R evi ew In a re v iew

of the leg al suffici ency

of the ev ide nce to suppor t the j ur y ’s reje cti on of
a s elf- defense c lai m, i n addi ti on to our us ual rev iew

for l eg al suffici ency

of the ev ide nce,
w e ask w het her any ration al jury w ould have foun d, bey ond a reaso nab le dou bt, a gainst the d e fe n dant on th e s elf- defense i ss ue. Saxton, 804 S. W .2d a t 914 ; W il li am s v . St ate , 226 S.W .3d 611 , 616 -17 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, no pe t.). W he n rev i ew i ng factu al s uffi c i en cy to s up po rt th e rej ecti on of a s el f- de fen s e c l ai m,
w e rev iew

al l th e e vide n ce in a neut ra l li g ht an d as k w hether the Stat e’s ev ide nce tak en24

alo ne i s t oo w eak to s uppor t t he findi ng and w hether the proof of gui lt , al thoug h adeq uate if tak en al one, isag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Zul ian i , 97 S.W .3d a t 595 ; see W

ats on , 204 S.W .3d at 416 -17. In con duct ing this review , w e be ar in mind that the fact -fin der may draw reason abl e i nferenc es, i s t he s ole j udg e of the w eig ht of t he ev ide nce and the credi bil ity of the w it ness es, and mayac ceptor reje ct any

or al l of the ev ide nce produce d by the par ti es. Swear

ing en v . St ate , 10 1 S. W .3 d 89 , 92 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 200 3).
c. Ana lysis Appel lan t t est ified Officer M ay w as the a g g re ss or , t hat h e resi ste d Of ficer M ay becau se Off ic er

M ay co nti nued to b e a t h im , and t hat h e feared for h is l ife. After the i n c i d e nt, appel la n th a d t o h a v e b ra i n s u rg e r y . T h e S t a t e c o n t ro v e rt e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e l fdefense claim by sho w ing th at ap pellan t charged atOf f icer May and atte mp ted to take his
w eapons ; i .e., he g ra bbed onto his hol ste r for hi s g un and the h ols ter for h is pepper

sp ra y and starte d sha king his w hole belt. Of f icer May

state d ap pellan t w as try ing to shake h is
w eapons l oose or

sh ake his g un bel t off. The Stat e als o showed that Off ic er M ay di d not strike app ellantuntil af ter app ellanthad dislodged Of f icer May ’s p e p p e r spra y and his fire ar m. W h e n Officer

M ay punc hed hi m in the head, appel lan t respon ded by punc hin g Off ic er M ay two or three ti mes i n the face. In order to av oid bei ng punc hed ag ain , O ff ic er Mayhit him in th e he ad wi th his f lashlight. O f f icer May denied he ha d use d excessiv e force ag ain st appel lan t. This tes ti mony and appel lan t’ s v ersi on of the inc ide nt rais ed fact is sues for th e jur

y about w hether

Of ficer May us ed ex ces si v e forc e. Res olu ti on of the fact i ss ues
w as w it hin the jur

y ’s prov inc e. See S axton , 804 S.W .2d a t 914

. Af ter consid ering the evidence und er the legal and factu ally suf f iciency stan dard s,
w e c oncl ude t hat e v en if t h e t ria l cour

t had ch arg ed th e j ur

y under se cti on 38. 14( d) , t he25

evidence would h a ve bee n legally and factu ally

suf f icient to have suppo rted th e jury ’s imp lied f inding on th e issue of self-defe n s e a n d t h a t the ev iden ce did no t af f irmatively est abl is h the defense. I ss ue th re e i s o v er ru led

. 5. Suff icien cy of t

he Ev ide nce to E

sta bli sh the S elf

-D efens e Ins tr

uct ionU nder Penal C ode Sect ion9.31 (b

) In i ss ue ei g ht, appel lan t arg ues the Stat e faile d in it s burden of pe rs uasi on to refute his proof o f se lf-defense ; hen ce, the e v iden ce is legallyin suf f icient to show he did no t act in sel f-defense. In is sue nin e, he arg ues the e v ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s how

he did not acti n s elf- defense. Sect ion 9.3 1(b) provides t hatt he use of force against ano the r is notju stif ied to resist
a n a r re s to r

s e a rc h t h a tthe act or

know s i s b e i n g m a d e b y a p e a c e o ffi c e r

u n l e s s ( 1 ) “ i f, before t he actor

offers a ny

resi sta nce, the peace off ic er
. . . uses or attempts to use g re ater force than neces sar

y to make the arrestor search, ” and (2) ” w hen and to the d eg re e the act or reaso nabl y

beli ev es the force is i mmediat ely nec ess ar

y to protect hi msel f aga ins t t he pea ce of f icer’s . . . use or attem pte d use of g reate r fo rce than nece ssary .” T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 9.3 1(b), (c)(1), ( 2). W e ha v e previously dete rmine d the ev iden ce w as legally and factu ally

suf f icient to supp ort the jury ’s fin ding o f g uilty. Appe llant’s self-defense evide n ce w as cont ro v erted b y Officer M ay ’s tes ti mony

thatappel lan t was the a g g re ss or and t hat O ff ic er

M ay di d notus e ex ces si v e forc e. The ev ide nce ra is es fact iss ues for th e jur y aboutw hether

appel lan t’ s u se of force ag ain st Off ic er M ay w as jus ti fied to resi st the
ar re st. Res olu ti on of

factiss ues is w it hin the jur y ’s prov inc e. See S axton , 804 S.W .2d a t 914. After cons ide ri ng the ev ide nce under t h e l e g a l suffici ency

st andard, we c oncl ude t he
e v i d e n c e is leg a l l y

s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rtt h e j u r y ’ s i mp l i e d fi n d i n g o n t h e i s s u e o f s e l f-26

defense. After

v iew ing al l the ev ide nce in a neutral li g ht, inc lud ing appel lan t’ s t est imony in suppo rtof his se lf-d efense c lai m, w e c oncl ude t he Stat e’s ev ide nce is not too weak to suppo rtthe jur

y ’s impli ed f ind ing agai nstappell ant’ s sel f-defense is sue. W e al so conc lud e t h e j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g i s n o t a g a i n s tt h e g re a tw e i g h ta n d p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e
. W e hol d the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s i mpli ed findi ng on the i ss ue of sel f-defense. Is sues ei g ht an d ni ne are ov er ru led

. C. Iss ues Per

tai nin g to Con victi

on fo r Ass ault on a Publ ic Ser vant 1. Suf ficiency of

the Evidence a. Leg al Suff

iciency In i ss ue te n, ap pel lan t arg ues the e v ide nce is l eg all y in su f fici ent t o prov e he int enti onal ly , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y

as saul ted a publ icse rv ant. (I ). Appl icable Law To prov e the offense of as saul t on a publ icse rv ant, the S tate must prov e tha t: ( 1) appel lan t i ntent ion all y , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y

ca used bodi ly

i nju ry to Off icer M ay ; ( 2) Off ic er M ay w as a publ ic ser

v ant; (3 ) appel lan t k new Officer M ay w as a publ icse rv ant; and (4 ) Off ic er

M ay w as law fully di sc harg ing hi s o ff ic ial duti es at t he ti me of the as saul t. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 22.01( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ); Chad wick , 277 S.W .3d a t 105 ; see a lso Hall
v. State , 158 S.W .3d 4 70, 4 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. Bodi ly i nju ry i s d efined as “ phy si cal pain , illness, or a ny imp airme nt of p hysical con dition .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1.07( a) (8 ) (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). In t his ca se, the charg e’s appli cat ion parag ra ph all ow ed the jur y to conv ict app ell ant if they found, i n rele v ant p art, he: inten tiona lly , knowing ly or recklessly

cause [d] b odi l y

i nj ur y t o an ot he r , nam ely M. M ay , herein after cal led co mplai nant, b y gra b bin g or by st ri ki ng compl ain ant w it h defendant’ s hand and sai d compl ain ant w as at the t ime of27

said of fense a pub lic serv an t , n a m ely, a City of Garland pea ce of

f icer, eng ag ed i n the law

ful dis charg e of an off ic ial duty and sai d defendant knew that the c omplai nant w as a publ icse rv ant,

. . . . (i i)

. Ana lysis In t his ca se, a rati onal j ur y co uld hav e det er mined the foll ow ing f ro m the e v ide nce: (1 ) appel lan t str uck

Of ficer May w it h his hand tw o or thre e times in the face; (2) thi s c aused physical pain to Of

f icer May ; (3) at the tim e of the assault, Of

f icer May

w as on duty as a Ci ty o f G a rl a n d p o li c e o f

f ic e r, wh o wa s e n ga ge d in t h e la wf u l d is c h a rg e o f a n o f f ic ia l d u ty; (4 ) that at t he ti me of t he ass aul t, Officer M ay w as in uni form and w ear ing hi s b adg e; an d (5 ) appel lan t was aw are Officer M ay w as a pol ic e off ic er
. To the c ontra ry, appel lan t’ s e v ide nce w as that: ( 1) he d id not s tr ik e, g ra b, or other w is e as saul t O ff ic er

M ay ; ( 2) he d id not re si st author ity and w as not a g g re ss iv e; ( 3)
w hen app ell ant l e ft his brother ’s hous e, ap pel lan t “ w as jus t fine, ” “walk ing as a reg ula r perso n,” and “happ y as he ca n be ;” and (4) he was not the kind of person w ho would atta ck a po lice of

f icer To the e xtent the ev ide nce confli cte d, it w as w it hin the jur y ’s prov inc e to re sol v e the confli cts

. See V

asque z v. State , 67 S.W .3d 2 29, 2 37 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2002)

. After
v iew ing the evidence in th e lig ht m ost favorable to th e v erdict , we h o ld the evidence is legally suf f icient to supp ort the con viction for assau lt on a pu blic serv ant . Issue te n is
ov er ru led

. b. Factu al Suff

iciency In i ss ue el ev en, a ppel lan t arg ues the ev ide nce is fact ual ly insuffici ent to prov e he int enti onal ly , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y

as saul ted a publ icserv ant. Af ter rev iew ing al l of the evidence in a n eut ral lig ht, we conclude the evidence supp orting the con v iction is not so
w eak th at th e jury ’s dete rmina tion is clearlyw rong and m anifestly unju st, or tha t the v erdictT he t r i al cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y as f ol l ows: 13 T he u se of

f or ce ag ai nst ano t her i s not j ust i f i ed t o r esi st an ar r est or sear ch t hat t he d e f e n d a n t k n o w s is b e in g m a d e b y a p e a c e o ff ic e r , o rb y a p e r s o n , a c tin g in a p e a c e o ff ic e r ’s pr esence and a t h i s di r ect i on, ev en t hough t he a r r est orsear ch i s unl awf ul , unl ess t he r esi st ance i s j ust i f i ed u ndert he f ol l owi ng ci r cum st ances: T he u se of

f or ce t o r esi st an ar r est orsear ch i s j ust i f i ed: (1 ) i f, b e fo re th e d e fe n d a n t o ff e rs a n y re s i s ta n c e , th e p e a c e o ff i c e r u s e s o r a tte m p ts t o use gr eat erf or ce t han necessar y t o m ake t he a r r est orsear ch; and

( 2 ) w h e n a n d to t h e d e g r e e th e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s th e f o r c e is i m m edi at el y nece ssar y t o pr ot ect hi m sel faga i nst t he p eace off i cer ’ s use orat t em pt ed u se o f g re a te r fo rc e th a n n e c e s s a ry.;

“ R easonabl e be l i ef ” m eans a be l i eft hat woul d be hel d byan or di nar y and pr udent p e rs o n i n th e s a m e c i rc u m s ta n c e s a s th e d e fe n d a n t.

N ow, t her ef or e, i fy ou b el i ev e f r om t he e v i dence bey ond a r easona bl e do ubt t hat t he def endan t , Pedr o T or r es Ri co, r esi s t ed a n ar r est orsear ch t hat t he d ef endan t knew was bei ng m ade bya peace off i cer , nam el y M

. M ay , r egar dl ess of whet herornott he a rr est or sear ch was u nl awf ul , by gr abbi ng orby st r i k i ng M

. M aywi t h t he d ef endan t ’ s han d, and y ou f ur t herf i nd o rhav e a r easona bl e do ubt t her eof , t hat bef or e t he d efe ndant off er ed a ny res i s t an c e, i f an y , t he pe ac e o ffi c er us ed or att em pted t o u s e g rea t er forc e t ha n n ec es s ary t o m ake t he a r r est orsear ch, and y ou f ur t herf i nd, orhav e a r easona bl e do ubt a nd y ou f ur t herf i nd, orhav e a r easona bl e do ubt t her eof , t hat t he d ef endan t r easona bl ybel i ev ed t hat t he f or ce wh en a nd to t he d egr ee u sed, i fi t was, was i m m edi at el y nece ssar y t o pr ot ect h im s e lfa g a in s t t h e p e a c e o ff ic e r ’s u s e o ra tt e m p te d u s e o fg r e a te rf o r c e th a n n e c e s s a r y, t hen y ou wi l l f i nd i n f av orof t he def endan t ’ s pl ea of sel f
- def ense and f i nd t he d ef endan t not g u ilty. 28 is ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of t he ev ide nce. See Watson , 204 S.W .3d at 41 4- 17. Therefore, we hol d the ev ide nce is factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he c onv icti on for as saul t on a publ icse rv ant. Is sue ele v en i s o v er ru led

. 2. Suf ficiency of

the Evidence to Esta blish Self-Def ense In i ss ue twelv e, ap pel lan t arg ues the S ta te f ail ed i n i ts burden of persuas ion to ref ute his proof

of self-defense ; hen ce, the evidence is legally insuf f icient to show he d id not a ct in sel f-defense. In is sue thi rt een, he arg ues the ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent t o show he did no t act in self-defense . For t h is of fense , the trial court instructed the jury 13 under the law of sel f-defense prov ide d i n penal code secti on 9. 31( b) , ( c) (1 )- (2 ). See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 9.3 1(b), (c)(1)- (2).29

W e hav e prev iou sl y

dete rmi ned the ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o supp ort the jury ’s guilty v erdict for assault on a pub lic serv ant

. T he ev iden ce to sup port app ellant ’s d efense o f

se lf-defense a nd the S tate ’s contrary evidence h as be en p rev iously discusse d. T he e v iden ce raises fact issues for t he jury a bou t w het her ap pellan t’s cond uct of str ik ing Officer

May in the face w as jus ti fied to resi st the arrest . Res olu ti on of fact i ss ues is w it hin the jur

y ’s prov inc e. See S axton , 8 0 4 S

. W

. 2 d a t 9 1 4

. Aft e r c o n si der ing the evidence u nde r the legal suf f iciency stan dard , w e con clude t h e e viden ce is legally suffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s i mpli ed findi ng on t he i ss ue of sel f-defense. Aft e r vie w ing all the ev iden ce in a ne utral light, including app ellant ’s testimo ny in suppo rtof his se lf-d efe n se cl aim, w e c oncl ude t he St ate’ s e v ide nce is not too weak to suppo rtthe jur

y ’s i mpli ed findi ng ag ain st appel lan t’ s sel f-defense is sue. W e al so conc lud e the j ur y ’s f in d in g i s n ot ag ain st the g re at weig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce. Therefore, we hol d the ev ide nce is factual ly su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s i mpli ed findi ng on th e i ss ue of sel f-defense. Is sues tw elv e and thi rt een are ov er ru led

. III . C oncl usi on W e af f irm the trial court’s judgmen ts.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 1th d ay

of June, 2009.