Court Opinion

ID: 9640344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:03:39.330365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:29.158337
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
The State contends that a threat can be inferred from the fact that appellant shot the complainant a second time. The State argues that this suggests the complainant was still alive after the first shot, and if alive, he would certainly have felt threatened and placed in fear as a result of having been shot.
The evidence did not show which shot caused the complainant’s death, but it is undisputed that appellant fired the first shot into the complainant’s head at pointblank range. The State's argument requires us to assume, without evidence, that the victim survived the first shot, and in addition, was still conscious enough to perceive the threat. The law does not allow us to stack one inference upon another in order to find the evidence sufficient. Threats can be communicated by conduct, but only if the victim perceives the threatening conduct. We find no evidence that the victim did so.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.