Intent means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result. Intent is a subjective state of mind usually established only by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the fact that evidence of appellant s intent is circumstantial does not mean that the evidence is insufficient. Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient because the statute requires an intent to cause fear, and in this case, the victim was not in fear of bodily harm. Christy s testimony that she was afraid during the fight is not material.
Intent is determined by the appellant s purpose.
The crime is completed if the acts are done intentionally to cause fear, and it is irrelevant whether the intended result is actually achieved. Here, the jury concluded that appellant intended to cause fear. This conclusion was based on the behavior of appellant and perhaps strengthened by Christy s testimony that she was afraid. Finally, appellant contends that Christy s account of the incident lacks credibility because every time she told it, her account became more violent, and that, without her testimony, the evidence is insufficient. At trial, appellant was given ample opportunity to question Christy s credibility.