## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0 742 - 07

M A R C U S LE E TU C K ER , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY K ELL ER , P . J. , del i vere d t he unan i m ous opi ni on of t he C ourt . Ap pe lla nt u se d a kn if e or so me oth e r sh arp ob

je c t to sta b and c ut the vic timnume ro us tim e s. The que stion here is w hether the evidenc e was leg ally sufficie nt to show that the object that ca used the wounds wa s a dea dly

wea pon in the manner

of its use or intended use. Answe ring that question

“ y e s, ” we re ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t he c ourt of a pp e a ls.

I. BACKG ROUND Appellant wa s char g ed with aggrav ated assault by using a deadly wea pon. The c ourt of appea ls recited the following evidenc e as pe rtinent to the dea dly wea pon issue:TUCKER – 2

Vo nq uin tus ha d b e e n a

patr ol o ff

ic e r f or thi rt e e n y e ars . 1 The State off

ere d evidenc e on this issue from three source s. First is the t estimony of Houston police off

icer Dennis Vonquintus, who s tated that he a rrived at the scene 1 and sawthe comp la in a

nt’ s s h ir t s o a ked in blood. Vonquintus testified primarily about two wounds: a puncture wound to the bac k of the c omplainant’s nec k near her spine, and a punc ture mar

k on her a rm. Upon noticing the second wound, the complainant stated to V onquintus that appellant car ried a two-inch folding knife. Vonquintus was told by the complainant that she an d appellant ha d foug ht but she had not seen appellant use a we apon o t her tha n his fists. Vonquintus testified the two injuries c ou ld n ot h a ve be e n c a

us e d b y a fi st. Vonquintus further te stified there was a nother injury

“somewhe re around her upper back,” and other

injuries on the complainant’ s back, but he could not see the m. Vo nq uin tus te sti fi e d th a t, i n h is ex peri enc e , th e se we re c le an c uts and “ my fi rs t tho ug ht w a s th a t [a

pp e lla nt] h a d s ta

bb e d [th e c omp la ina

nt]. ” At thi s p oin t in

his te sti mony , th e fo llo wi nge xch ang e oc c ur re d b e tw e e n th e pr os e c uto r a nd Vo nq uin tus : Q
. D i d yo ukn o w w h a to b

j e c t , s p e c i f

i c a l l y? A. No. Q. Wou ld you

c la ssi fy it a s a n unk no wn ob je c t? A. Ye s. Q. Would y ou classify

it as a dea dly

wea pon? A. Ye s. Vonqui n t u s could not tell if the bleedingwas life- threatening , only that the complainant wa s bleeding profuse ly . Vonquintus ad m i t t ed the c omplainant never sa id s he ha d be e n sta

bb e d. Ho we ve r, Vo nq

uin tus fo rm e d th a t op ini on be c a us e , in his experience , victims of crime do not alwa y s rea liz e the nature of the ir injuries. The c omplainant’s medica l rec ords s tate she was treated f or stab wounds to the ba ck and for ear

m. The re cords do not indica t e that either wound re quired stitches. The c omp la ina

nt w a s r e le a se d a ft e r s pe nd ingthe nig ht i n th e ho sp ita l. After leavingthe hospital, the complainant wa s interviewe d and photogr aphed byTUCKER – 3

Arc enea ux had bee n employ ed by the Houston Police Depa rtment for e ighte en y ear s 2 and, at the time of

her te stimony , was a

plain-clothes investig ator in the homicide division of the fa mil y -v iol e nc e un it. Tuc k e r v . S tat e , 2 21 S.W. 3d

78 0, 78 2- 83 , 7 82 n. 2, 78 3 n .3 (T e x. Ap p. –Co rp us Chr ist i 3 2007). Id . at 783.

4 This question was aske d a little over a pag e af ter the te stimony

ab o u t the “throug h and 5 throug h lace ration cut. ” T h o u gh the words “ this ty pe of injury” may

have be en re fer

ring to that J ane t Ar ce neaux, also an off icer with the Houston police depa rtment. Arc enea

ux 2 descr ibed the complaina

nt’s i n j u ri es as being “ lace rations,” whic h was c larified a s meaning"some kind of cut." * * * At one poin t , Ar ce neaux describe d a banda g e on the c omplainant’s bac k which cover ed an injury . Arc enea ux did not r emove the bandag e but r ather relied upon the complainant’s de scription of the injury . When asked what she ha d been told by the complainant, Ar cene aux testi fied: “She had a stab wound. Well, I ' m sor ry . She had a lac eration to the back upper neck area that appea red to be like a cut. And the n she had one c lose to her spine.” Arc enea ux testified that t he inj uries could have been inflicted by a knife and per haps a k e y d e p e n d i n g o n t h e t yp e o f k e y an d t h e m an n e r o f i t s u s e . D u r i n g h e r

t e s t i m o n y, Arc enea ux answe red a ffirmatively when asked: “[W ]ere the injuries that y ou saw on [the c omp la ina

nt] c on sis te nt wi th be ing inf lic te d wi th so me so rt

of ob je c t th a t c ou ld b e c o n s i d e r e d

a d e a d l y w e a p o n ?” 3 The c ourt of appe als descr ibed the above as “the sum of the evidenc e” related to the issue at hand. 4 Af te r r e vie wi ng the re c or d, we fi nd thi s r e c itatio n to be inc omp le te wi th r e sp e c t to Arc enea ux ’s testimony
. Arc enea

ux also testified t hat t he victim suffe red “stab wounds to the bac k of her neck, close to he r spine, and she was in a lot of pain.” In addition, Arce neaux testified that the victim suffer ed “a

throug h and throug h lace ration cut,” saying that it appeared “that whateve r object that wa s used went a ll the way throug h her a

rm.” And w hen aske d, “I f a ke y had bee n used to inflict this t y

pe of in j u ry , wo u ld y ou consider a key a dea dly wea pon,” Ar cene aux responded 5TUCKER – 4

specific injury , it is not c lear on this c old r ecor d to w hich injury or injuries th e p ro s ec u t o r was re fe rr i n g. Tucker , 221 S.W .3d at 783-85.

6 Id. at 784. 7 a f f i r m a t i v e l y. Appellant wa s convicted of ag g ravated assault and he app ea l ed , claimi ng , among other things, that the e vidence was leg ally insufficient to show that he used or exhibited a deadly wea pon during the commission of the assault. After rec iting what it considere d to be the sum of the e vidence relating to the issue, the c ourt of appe als consider ed a numbe r of fac tors that it believed show ed that the evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the dea dly wea pon finding
. The c ourt of appe als stated that

6

n o thr e a ts w e r e ma d e b y a p p e ll an t d

u r in g th e in c id e n t, th a t th e r e w a s n o te s ti mo n y about the sharpne ss of the folding knife that appellant carr ied, t hat neither Vonquintus nor Arcene aux testi fied that the folding knife ha d the ability to inf lict de ath or serious injury (thoug h both te stified that the
wea pon that cause d the injuries could be classified as a deadly wea pon), that the ac tual knife wa s not introduced into evide nce, that there w as no evide nce on the manner in which appe llant used the knife, that the complainant was unable to see the knife as it was used bec ause she was lying on the g round with her ha

nds over he r fa ce , t h at the wounds on the ba ck and f orea rm wer e not seve re enoug h to require stitches, an d t h at no expert testimony was off ere d to support a dea dly -we apon finding
. The c ourt of appe als held that t he evidence was i nsufficie nt to show that the folding knife,

7 “as a ctually

used by appellant, wa s capa

ble of c ausing death, a s u b s t antial risk of de ath, serious perma nent disfig ureme nt, or protra cted loss or impairment of the function of a ny bodily member orTUCKER – 5

Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 785. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 I n its se co n d gro u n d , the State contends that we should overr ule Col lie r v . S

tat e , 999 13 S.W .2d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), and per mit reformation of the judg ment to refle ct conviction fo r a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e . O ur dis po sit ion

of the State ’s fi rs t g ro un d ob viate s the ne e d to a dd re ss the sec ond, so the State’s sec ond g round for revie w is dismis sed. org an.” The c ourt of appe als furthe r held that ther e wa s “no evide nce w hatsoeve r re gar d i n g the

8

manner of how a ppellant ac tually

used the knife , much less that he use d it or intended to use it in a
manner capa ble of c ausing death or

serious bodi ly injury .” Responding to arg uments made by the 9 State, the cour

t of appeals s tated that “ther e wa s no testimony from either

Vonquintus or Arc enea

ux
a s to ho w suc h a

kn if e a s a c tua lly

us e d b y a pp e lla nt i n th e ins tant c a se c ou ld b e us e d to c a us e de a th
o r s er i o u s bodily

injury .” Wit h respe ct to the possibilit y that a key

could have been use d as the 10

wea pon, the cour

t of appeals held that the evidence “is even weake r than with the knife beca use there
was no descr iption of any key .” Consequently , the court of appea ls sustained ap pellant’s 11 contention, re verse d the judg ment of the trial c ourt, and re manded the c ase f or entry of a judgment of a c qu itt a l. 12 I n the first g round of its petition for discre tionary revie w, the State complains that the c ourt of appe als err ed in finding that the evidenc e wa s leg ally insufficient to support the dea dly -we apon element of

ag g ravated assault. We ag ree . 13 ENDF I EL DTUCKER – 6

T EX . P EN . C ODE §22.02(a) (2). 14 Id. , §1.07(a) (17)( A), (B ). 15 Se e Mc Cai n v . S

tat e , 22 S.W .3d 497, 502-03 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000)(“a n object that 16 ha s an o bv iou s p ur

po se a pa rt fr om c a us ingde a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y c ann ot b e a

de a dly wea pon” by desig n; most t y

pes of knives a

re not de adly

wea pons by desig n). T EX . P EN . C ODE §1 .0 7( a )( 17 )( B ); Mc Cai n , 22 S.W .3d at 503. 17 T EX . P EN . C ODE §1.07(a) (46). 18 Mc Cai n , 22 S.W .3d at 503. 19 Id. 20 II. AN AL YSI S Under the var iant of t he offense of ag g ravated assault with which a ppellant was c harg ed, a person c ommits an off

ense if he commits an assault and “use s or exhibit s a dea dly wea pon during the commission of the assault.” A wea pon can be deadly

by desig n or use. Neither a folding 14 15 knife nor a k e y ar e d e a d ly w e a p o n s b y d e s ig n . A n o b

je c t is d e a d ly w e a

p o n b y u s a g e if “in the 16

manner of its use or intended use ,” the objec t “is capa ble of causing death or

serious bodily

injury .” 17 “Serious b o d i l y i n

j ury ” is define d as “bodily injury that cre ates a

substantial risk of death or that
cause s death, ser ious permane nt disfigur ement, or protrac ted l oss or i mpairment of the function of any bodily member or

org an.” The plac ement of the word “ capa ble” is cr ucial to un d erstanding 18 thi s me tho d o f d e te rm ini ngde a dly -w e a po n s ta tus
. Th e State is n ot r e qu ir e d to s ho w that th e “ us e

19

or int e nd e d u se c a

us es de a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily inj ur y ” bu t th a t th e “ us e or

int e nd e d u se is c ap ab le of ca using de ath or ser ious bodily injury .” Even without expert testimony or a de scription of the 20

wea pon, the i njuries s uffe red by the vi ctim can by themselves be a sufficient basis for inferringthatTUCKER – 7

Mo ra le s v . S tat e , 633 S
. W
. 2 d 866, 868-69 (Te x . Crim. App. 1982)(photog raph of deep 21 slash from just underne ath the victim’s ea rlobe a cross he r che ek to the cor ner of her mouth, closed by sutures, wa s sufficient to show that a deadly wea pon was used)
. See id. at 8 6 8 (c o m mon knowledg e that throat is a particular ly vulnera ble par t of the 22 body ). Tucker , at 7 8 3 , ci t i n g En gli sh v . S tat e , 647 S.W .2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). 23 a dea dly wea pon was used. 21 As we e x plained above , the cour t of appe als’s opinion neg lected to take into account a ll of the re levant fa cts , perha

ps the most crucia l of which wa s the stab wound that we nt all the way th r o u g h t h e v i c t i m ’ s ar

m . I td o e s n o tt a k e e xp e rtt e s t i m o n y t o r e c o g n i z e t h a ts u c h a

w o u n d c ou ld easily have se vere d a major blood ve ssel or ner ve, plac ing the victim’s life, or at least the use of her
ar m , i nj e o p a r dy. E v e nt h o u g h t h e v i c t i m w a s f o rtu n a t e t h a t s h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e s u c h a s e r i o u s i n j u r y, the we a po n th a t c a

us e d h e r w ound

wa s c ap ab le , in

its man ne r o f u se , o f c a us ingse ri ou s b od ily injury . I n addition, the court of a ppeals unduly

minimi zed the stab wound to the bac k of the ne ck,
near the spine, whe n it failed to observe that this inj ury g ener ated a

lot o f p ai n . Such a wound,
rec eived in a vulne rable are a, would seem to c arr y at least some potential for r esulting in a serious 22 bodily injury such as pa

raly sis or death. The c ourt’s asse ssment of the e vidence that it did recite is also somewhat flawe d. The c ourt acknow ledg ed that expert testimony or lay testimony

may be suff icient to suppor

t a dea dly -we apon fi n d i n g, b u tt h en s t at edt h at n o ex p er tt es t i m o n y wa s o ff er ed t o s u p p o rt a d ea d l y -w eap o nfi n d i n g. 23 The c ourt’s conc lusion ignore s the fac t that two police office rs expli citly stated that the injuries wer e inflicted by

a dea dly wea pon. Police office rs ca

n be expert witnesse s wi t h respect to whether aTUCKER – 8

Ha wk ins v . S tat e , 605 S.W .2d 586, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 24 d ea d l y we apon was used, and the leng thy experience of both offic ers, a nd Arc enea

ux ’s position 24 in a hom icide divi sion in particula r, sug g ests qualification as an expert on whethe r ce rtain wounds
wer e ca used by a dea dly wea pon. The c ourt of appe als also minimiz ed the of fi ce rs ’ t es t imony

in claiming that neither
s p e c i f i c a l l y t e s t i f

i e d t h a tt h e f o l d i n g kn i f

e h a d t h e a b i l i t y t o i n f

l i c t 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. Thoug h neith er office r knewwhether the injuries wer e inflicted by a knife , a key , or some other object, b o th a g r e e d , b a s e d o n th e n a tu r e o f th e in

ju r ie s r e c e iv e d , th a t th e w e a p o n th a t c a

u s e d the injuries was a deadly

wea pon. Other de ficienc ies in the rec ord alleg ed by the cour t of appe als – the absenc e of a

ny detailed de scription of the knife or key or of e x actly

how appe llant employ ed the
we a po n u se d to inj ur e the vic tim– r e ly up on the inc or re c t a ssumpt ion

that th e us e of

a de a dly
wea pon cannot be inferr ed from the i njuries t hemselves. Whether a de adly wea pon can be inferr ed solely from the victim’s injurie s depends, of course , on the nature of those injuries, but in this case, the jury did not act irrationally

in concluding that appellant use d a dea dly wea pon. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he c ourt of a pp e a ls i s r e ve rs e d, and

the c a se is re mand e d to t hat c ourt to addre ss appellant’s r emaining points of error
. Deliver ed: Novembe r 26, 2008 Publis h