individual or (2) intends to causeserious
bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerousto hunnanlife that causes
the deathof an individual.Tex. Pen.Code $ 19.02(bX1),t.2). An intentional
killing occurswhen the person's consciousdesireor objective is to causethe
deathof another. A knowing killing occurswhen the personknows that death
is reasonablycertain. Tex. Pen. Code $ 6.03(a), (b). Thus,a knowing killing
contemplatesthe commissionof an actthat is objectively dangerousto human
Iife. Lugo-Lugov. State,650S.W.2d72,81(Tex.Crim. Af,p. 1983).To prove
murder under this theory, the statemust prove that the defcndant intentionally
or knowingly engagedin art act that causedthe death ancl intended or knew
that deathwould resultfrom that act.Leal v. State,800S.\I/.2d346,348 (Tex.
App., Corpus Christi 1990, pet ref.). Intentional and knorving murder under
(2) is a result-of-conduct $19.02(a)(1), offense.Cookv. State,884S.W.2d485
l1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, the culpable mental state is focused on the
defendant'sintent to achievethe result, ratherthan the defendant'sknowledge
regardingthe conduct.Lugo-Lugov. State,650S.W.2dat 81. Furthermore,in
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidencein self-defensecases,courtsnot only
consider all of the evidence in the light most favorabl: to the verdict to
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elementsof murder beyonda reasonabledoubt but also del.erminewhetherthe
jury could have found beyond a reasonabledoubt that appellantdid not act in
Saxtonv.State,804S.W.2d910,911 (Tex.Crim. App. 1991). self-defense.
In this case,the jury was instructedon the use of dleadlyforce in self-
defense.The jury was instructedproperly that if you find from the evidence,as
viewed from the standpointof the defendantat the time, thertfrom the words or
conduct or both of JamesTaylor it causeda reasonableexpectationor fear of
the imminent commission of the offense of sexual assault at the hands of
James Taylor and that acting under such apprehensionand reasonably
believing that the use of deadly force on his part was immediatelynecessaryto
protect himself against James Taylor's imminent sexual
assault,he struckJamesTaylor with a hammeror an unknown object,then you
should acquit the defendanton the groundsof self-defense;or if you have a
reasonabledoubt as to whetheror not the defendantwas acting in self-defense
on said occasion and under the circumstance,then you should give the
defendantthe benefit of that doubt and say by your verdict, not guilty. (CR 89-
93); Tex. Pen. Code $ 9.32. The charge accurately applies the law that
appellantlegally may use deadly force againstthe complairnantto escapefrom
being the victim of a crime before or during the commission of that crime.
Thomasv. State,578S.W.2d691,698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
Appellant did not have any motive or reasonto strike the complainant
with the hammer other than the fact that he had been se>