court erred in den'ying his motion for instructedverdict becauseat the close of the State'scase-in-chiefthe Statehad provedonly that (1) the complainantdied from blunt force trauma,(2) appellant told his father that the complainant"wasn't going to make it to work the next day becausehe was deadin a blanketin a motel room," and (3) appellantwas located andarrestedoutsideof the motel.
A challengeto the trial court'sruling on a motion for an instructedverdictis in actualitya challengeto the sufficiencyof the evidenceto supportthe conviction. Cook v. State,858S.W.zd467,470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).Therefore, when consideringwhether the trial court erred in overruling a motion for instructed verdict,the reviewingcourt is not limited to a review of the ,evidence presentedin the State'scase-in-chief.Id. We will considerappellant'sissuesin light of the well-established standardof review applicableto a challenger to the sufficiencyof the evidenceto supporta conviction.
In evaluatinga challengeto the sufficiency of the evidencesupportinga conviction,we view all of the evidencein the light most favorableto the verdict. Wesbrookv. State,29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).The issueon appealis not whetherwe, as a court, believethe State'sevidenceor believethat appellant'sevidenceoufweighsthe State'sevidence.Wickerv. State,667 S.W.2d 137,143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).The verdict may not be c,verturned unlessit is by proof beyonda reasonable irrationalor unsupported doubt.Matsonv. State,8l9 S.W.2d839,846 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).Thetrier of fact 'oisi the solejudgeof the credibility of the witnessesand of the strengthof the evidence."Fuentesv. State, 991 S.W.2d267,27I (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).The trier of fact may chooseto believeor disbelieveany portion of the witnesses'testimon;r.Sharpv. State,707 S.W.2d6lI,614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).When facedwith conflictingevidence, we presumethe trier of fact resolved conflicts in favor of the prevailing party. Turro v. State,867 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).Therefore,if arry rationaltrier of fact couldhavefoundthe essentialelementsof the crimebeyonda doubt,we must affirm. McDuff v. State,939 S.W.zd 607,614 (Tex. reasonable Crim. App. 1997).
A. Is the evidencesufficient to support the jury's finding that appellantintendedto kill the complainant? A personcommitsthe offenseof murder if he intentionallyor knowingly causesthe deathof an individual or intendsto causeseric,usbodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerousto human life that calses the death of an A personactswith (2)(West20l1). individual.Tex. PenalCodeAnn. $ 19.02(bX1), intent"with respectto the natureof his conductor to a resultof his conductwhenit is his consciousobjectiveor desireto engagein the conductlor causethe result." Tex. Penal Code Ann. $ 6.03(a) (West 20Il). A person acts knowingly with respectto his conductwhen that personis awarethe conductis reasonablycertain to causethe result.Tex. PenalCodeAnn. $ 6.03(a).
The Stateinitially arguesthat appellant'sfirst issue should be overruled Becausean becauseappellanttestifiedhe committedthe offensein sell'-defense. is an intentionalact,the Statearguesappellantcannotchallenge act of self-defense the sufficiencyof the evidenceto supportintentto kill the complainant.The Court of Criminal Appealsof Texas,however,has held that the PenalCode doesnot require that a defendantintend the death of an attacker for the appellantto be justified in using deadlyforce in self-defense. Alonzo v. Stctte,353S.W.3d778, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).Therefore,appellantmay arguethat he actedin self- defense,but, in doingso, did not intendto kill the complainant.
Intent, being a questionof fact, is in the sole purview of the jury. Brown v. Stote,122S.W.3d 794,800(Tex.Crim.App. 2003).A jury rnayrely on collective commonsenseand commonknowledgewhen determiningintent.Ramirezv. State, 229 5.W.3d725,729(Tex.App.-San Antonio2007,no pet.).Intentalsomay be infened from the circumstantialevidencesurroundingthe incident,which includes acts, words, and conductof the accused.See Tex. Code Crim.