Court Opinion

ID: 9943744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 08:10:51.885548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.686488
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 22, 2024

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-23-00498-CR
                           ———————————
                        GILBERT DAMIAN, Appellant
                                           V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court
                          Brazoria County, Texas
                     Trial Court Case No. 92897-CR

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Appellant Gilbert Damian of the second-degree felony of

aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon—a knife,1 and after finding

three enhancements true, assessed his punishment at thirty years in prison. In a

1
      See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2).
single issue, Damian argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction

because the “State failed to establish he possessed the requisite mens rea for the

offense and that he threatened harm to the complainant” with a deadly weapon.

      We hold there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                                    Background

      On May 6, 2021, Yvette Miller called 9-1-1 asking for an officer to come to

her residence at 16 North Avenue B in Freeport, Texas. She told the 9-1-1

operator:

      This guy over here is messing with me, he won’t leave me alone. I
      have been begging him all day to please leave me alone. He’s been
      screaming and yelling at me, he hit me, he spit on me, now he’s
      throwing my clothes down the stairs telling me to get out or he’s
      going to throw my dogs out the window. I can’t take this.

      The police arrived and separately interviewed Damian and Miller. Damian

denied assaulting Miller. Miller told the police that Damian hit her in the mouth,

pushed her arm, and pulled her leg. She and Damian had been in a relationship

and were living together at the house. They fought, Miller told them, because “he

thinks I’m messing with the guy next door.” She told the police Damian pointed a

pocketknife at her and told her he would cut her throat and the other person’s

throat. An officer took photos of injuries to Miller’s lip, shoulder, hand, and face.

                                          2
      Damian was arrested and indicted for aggravated assault by threat with a

deadly weapon.        The indictment alleged that Damian “did then and there

intentionally or knowingly threaten Yvette Miller with imminent bodily injury and

did use or exhibit a deadly weapon, namely, a knife, which in the manner of its use

or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Damian

pleaded not guilty.

                                     The Trial

      Damian represented himself during trial.2         The State presented three

witnesses and Damian testified on his own behalf.

A.    Yvette Miller

      Yvette Miller testified that she lived at 16 North Avenue B in Freeport,

Texas on May 6, 2021. She and Damian were living there “in a relationship.” 3

Before they lived there, they “stayed at a church for a few months” in Freeport,

Texas.

      According to Miller, on May 5, 2021, she and Damian “were having some

drinks and getting along and everything at first. And then I don’t know. He just

2
      Damian had standby counsel, but Damian opted not to confer with standby
      counsel during the trial.
3
      According to Miller, about two months before the May 6, 2021 incident, both she
      and Damian were arrested for assault. Damian was arrested for assaulting Miller,
      and Miller was arrested for assaulting Damian. Miller testified that she and
      Damian had an argument and he pushed her. Damian called the police and told
      them Miller assaulted him, which she denied during her testimony in the present
      trial. The charges against Damian and Miller were dismissed.

                                          3
started getting, like, mean and belligerent and I kept asking him please stop.” He

called her “a bitch, a cunt, a slut.” Damian called her those names because “[h]e

always thought I was messing with the people that lived at the front of the house.”4

He accused her of sleeping with “all the men that were staying” at the house.

      Miller testified that eventually that night, Damian became physical. “He just

kept yelling at me at first and then I kept telling him just stop, . . . so it didn’t go

any further. And then that’s when he was pulling me on my arm and then he had

kicked me on my leg and then he was spitting on me.” Damian spit in her face

three times and he also “pulled a knife out and said that he was going to cut me and

the owner [of the house] if we didn’t stop messing around.”

      Miller called 9-1-1 when she saw “he wasn’t going to stop and it was just

progressing and I started getting scared.” She testified, “[I]t was just getting out of

control. He just kept getting more physical and just getting out of control and I

just—I just wanted it to stop.” Miller testified that Damian “kept telling [her] he

was going to throw [her dogs] out the window.” She said he tried to pick one up

but she grabbed the dog from him.

      According to Miller, Damian pulled the knife out of his pocket and opened

it. He “always had [the knife] on him.” She testified he pointed the knife at her,

inches away from her, and told her “he was going to cut me and the landlord.”
4
      Miller testified they lived in the back unit of a house that had been converted to
      apartments. Their unit had a bathroom, kitchen, bed, and closet.

                                           4
Asked how she got a cut on her hand, Miller said, “That’s whenever he was

coming towards me and I went to grab and it got me right there.” Miller also

testified that Damian punched her in the face, breaking her tooth, causing her to

bleed and “bust[ing]” her lip, slapped her in the face, punched her in the shoulder,

and kicked her leg.

      After she called 9-1-1, the Freeport Police Department arrived. She told

them what Damian did to her and they took photos of her injuries. When the

police arrived, Miller’s clothes were strewn on the stairs, where Damian had

thrown them.

      The jury listened to the 9-1-1 call and viewed seven photos the police took

of Miller. The photos of her face reflected a broken tooth and a “busted” lip.

Miller testified that both happened when he punched her in the face. The jury also

saw photos of a cut5 on her hand, a red mark on her face where Damian allegedly

slapped her, and of bruising where he allegedly punched her on her shoulder.

      Damian’s pocketknife was also admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit

15.6 Miller testified the knife was the same one Damian put in his pocket after he

threatened her with it.

5
      It is unclear from the record whether the cut was from the knife. Miller testified
      the cut occurred “whenever he was coming towards me and I went to grab and it
      got me right there.”
6
      Damian, who did not object to the admission of the knife, acknowledged the knife
      was his.

                                           5
        After Damian was arrested, he released his wallet and bank cards to Miller

and told her to use the money in his bank account to pay the rent. The State

introduced six letters written by Damian to Miller. In the letters, Damian tells

Miller to use the bank cards to pay the rent. He also told her to go to the

courthouse to fill out an affidavit of non-prosecution, and that if she failed to do so,

he would file charges against her for using the bank cards he previously told her to

use.7

B.      Officer Leonel Organista

        Officer Leonel Organista of the Freeport Police Department testified that on

May 6, 2021, he was working the morning shift as a patrol officer and a field

training officer. He responded to a report of a couple fighting, a “disturbance.” In

all, four police officers and an officer trainee responded to the call.

        When he arrived, Officer Organista saw Miller “with a bloody lip and

swollen face like in her lip area.” The jury was shown the bodycam video of

Officer Organista’s interview with Damian.8 Another officer pulled a pocketknife

out from Damian’s pocket and Damian said the knife belonged to him. Officer

Organista took the knife, which he believed to be a “deadly weapon,” to the

Freeport Police Department.

7
        The letters are discussed in more detail below.
8
        Based on Officer Organista’s interview with Damian, he understood Miller was
        also a resident of the house at 16 North Avenue B.

                                              6
      According to Officer Organista, Damian told him he ran from Miller

because she was trying to assault him. Officer Organista testified he did not

believe Miller had assaulted Damian, who did not appear to be injured. Officer

Organista said the evidence gathered at the scene “was [consistent] to [Miller’s]

story of what had happened inside [the] residence.”

      Officer Organista testified that Damian was intoxicated when they spoke at

the house. At the police station, Damian was placed in a detox cell, where he was

“actively kicking the door or doing something to the metal . . . detox cell door.”

Because he continued to kick the door, he was put in a “wrap,” which “doesn’t

allow him to move.” The purpose of the wrap is for the prisoner’s safety, “you

know, him punching the door so many times or kicking it could potentially – he

could harm himself. So we took that decision to put the wrap on him.”

C.    Sergeant John Perez

      Sergeant John Perez, a Freeport Police Department patrol officer, was the

lead officer in the case. Sergeant Perez’s bodycam video of his interview with

Miller was played for the jury.

      Sergeant Perez testified that when they arrived at 16 North Avenue B, they

met Miller, who told him “she was involved with a disturbance with a – her

boyfriend. They were together for eight months.” Miller told Sergeant Perez that

she and Damian “were involved in an argument because she was being accused of

                                        7
cheating.” According to Sergeant Perez, Miller said Damian assaulted her with a

closed fist and pointed a knife at her. She told Sergeant Perez that Damian told her

he was “going to cut [her] throat” and the throat of the person with whom she was

allegedly cheating.

      Sergeant Perez told the other officers to arrest Damian.           He did so

“[b]ecause there were visible injuries to Ms. Miller” and she told him that Damian

assaulted her. Miller’s clothes were strewn on the staircase, which was consistent

with Miller’s statement that Damian had thrown her clothes all over the stairs.

Miller told Sergeant Perez that Damian displayed a knife, which the police

recovered from Damian’s pocket.

      Sergeant Perez testified that based on the evidence collected at the scene, the

witnesses’ statements, and his observation that day, he believes Damian

intentionally or knowingly threatened Miller with imminent bodily injury and

exhibited a deadly weapon.

D.    Gilbert Damian

      Gilbert Damian stated during opening arguments that he did not know

Miller. He stated, “I don’t even know this girl. She was brought to me. She was

homeless.” He stated he did nothing and that he “never displayed a knife to her.

I was working.”

                                         8
      During his testimony, Damian claimed that Miller, and not the police, had

taken the photos of Miller admitted into evidence, which according to Damian,

reflected “injuries that she’s had awhile back.”9 “Them officers didn’t take them

photos. Believe me. I recognize them photos from way back.” He testified that

Miller provided the photos of the injuries from her phone, and that she cut her

hand on the window.

      Damian testified he had known Miller for “about a year.” He testified,

“There is absolutely no way that I have committed these crimes that this girl or this

prosecution is bringing against me.” He stated, “I don’t do stuff like assault

women.”

      He testified that Miller had assaulted him four or five times and that he tried

unsuccessfully to file charges against her. Damian stated that Miller “gave [him] a

concussion. [He] had to go to the hospital and take – give hospital records. They

still wouldn’t file charges on her.” He continued:

      See, this girl is always assaulting. She’s very assaultive. She’s a
      crack head. She smokes a lot of crack when I’m at work, when I’m
      gone. . . . She had a guy with a gun there that was ready to use that
      gun with me. She’s a prostitute. She’s probably – I think she
      practices witchcraft, what it is.

      Damian testified that he spent a collective thirty-five years in the Texas

Department of Corrections. He committed criminal mischief in 1975 and upon
9
      Sergeant Perez’s bodycam footage shows an officer taking photos of Miller’s
      injuries.

                                         9
release, his probation for criminal mischief was revoked after he “allegedly hit

somebody with a car.” In 1982, he was charged with aggravated assault, when an

Angleton police officer claimed Damian “tried to stick him with a knife.”10

Damian testified he did not point a knife at anyone, but rather, he dropped it.

According to Damian, while he was in TDC serving a sentence for aggravated

assault against a peace officer, he was convicted of aggravated assault of a

correctional officer.

      Six letters written by Damian to Miller were admitted into evidence and

excerpts were read to the jury. One of the letters said, “Baby girl, I still love you.

I really do. And you must search your heart to fully comprehend this event.” This

was admitted as State’s Exhibit 14. The letter continued, “I am not filing charges

on you like you’ve been told. I gave you permission to use my cards. I even

wrote bank telling them I gave you permission, okay, use my cards, okay, and

with pin number.”

      In State’s Exhibit 9, another letter, Damian asks Miller “to go to the

courthouse and file a non-prosecution affidavit.” The letter offered her $500 to

sign the affidavit. The letter continues, “There is no way I was ever filing charges

on you. Unauthorized use of bank cards. I released them to you with pin number

plus your food stamps.” In another letter, State’s Exhibit 10, Damian writes, “I do

10
      He subsequently said the officer “claimed [Damian] hit him with [his] fan.”

                                          10
not know what made you – what made me throw some of your clothes downstairs.

Also about the kids.”11 Another letter, State’s Exhibit 11, says:

      I am requesting to talk to an investigator that will help me file charges
      against you. And you will be arrested and locked up like you have
      done me. You have never appreciated absolutely nothing I have done
      for you. All you have done for me is to take advantage of me, no
      matter how much I’ve done for you or what I’ve done for you. I have
      done more for you than I have ever done for any other girl I have ever
      had in my life.

It continues, “I will not file charges on you if you go to the courthouse and file a

non-prosecution affidavit.” Another letter, State’s Exhibit 12, says, “You never

called police so why did you call police on me May 6th 2021?” The letter

continues, “I need you to go to courthouse, file another non-prosecution affidavit,

sweetheart. Please go do this, Yvette. Okay? You never filed charges because it’s

impossible I threaten you with a knife.” State’s Exhibit 12 continues:

      I was mad because you had Ernest in my place I am renting from you
      – him, drinking my liquor, messing with you. That’s showing me no
      respect in my place. I should have never thrown some of your clothes
      down the stairs, but I was also made because you always kept
      windows open, subject dogs falling out the window.

Finally, the letter states, “Yvette. Okay. They have to drop charges. Okay? And

if – and as it is, because you never filed charges and you [sic] under no obligation

to show up at a trial. They cannot make you show up to trial.”

11
      Damian testified that “the kids” are Miller’s dogs.

                                           11
      The jury convicted Damian, made affirmative findings on three

enhancement paragraphs,12 and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

      This appeal ensued.

                    Standard of Review and Applicable Law

      We apply the sufficiency standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.

307 (1979) in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each

element of a criminal offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In evaluating

the sufficiency of the evidence, we defer to the factfinder’s credibility and weight

determinations. Id. at 894. “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Matlock v. State,

392 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319;

Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895)). We consider both direct and circumstantial evidence

in our analysis. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 517–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);

see Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)

12
      The enhancement paragraphs state that on November 14, 1978, Damian was
      convicted of the felony offense of Criminal Mischief-Damage and Destroy; on
      August 20, 1984, Damian was convicted of the felony offense of Aggravated
      Assault-Enhanced; and on December 11, 1987, he was convicted of the felony
      offense of Aggravated Assault on a Peace Officer-Habitual.

                                        12
(“Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the

guilt of an actor” and “the standard of review on appeal is the same for both direct

and circumstantial evidence cases.”) (quoting Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004)).

      This sufficiency standard does not blindly defer to the factfinder’s credibility

determinations, as “it allows for some consideration of whether the jury’s

credibility determinations were rational in light of the objective evidence.” Walker

v. State, Nos. PD-1429-14, PD-1430-14, 2016 WL 6092523, at *15 (Tex. Crim.

App. Oct. 19, 2016) (not designated for publication) (citing Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at

907). We must presume the finder of fact resolved any evidentiary conflicts in

favor of the verdict and defer to that resolution. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; see

also Morgan v. State, 501 S.W.3d 84, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (observing that

reviewing court’s role on appeal “is restricted to guarding against the rare

occurrence when a fact finder does not act rationally”) (quoting Isassi v. State, 330

S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)). If our review reveals the evidence is

insufficient, we must reverse the appellant’s conviction. Costilla v. State, 650

S.W.3d 201, 212 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). However, if

there are two permissible views of the evidence, “the fact finder’s choice between

them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

                                         13
      A person commits an assault if he “intentionally or knowingly threatens

another with imminent bodily injury[.]” TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(2). An

assault is enhanced to “aggravated assault” if the actor “uses or exhibits a deadly

weapon during the commission of the assault.”           Id. § 22.02(a)(2).    “Deadly

weapon” is defined as “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is

capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. § 1.07(a)(17)(B). And

“serious bodily injury” is defined as “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of

death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or

impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Id. § 1.07(a)(46).

                                      Analysis

      In his single issue, Damian argues the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction for aggravated assault. He argues the State failed to establish he had the

requisite mens rea for the offense and that he threatened to harm Miller with a

deadly weapon because his pocketknife was not a deadly weapon—a requisite

element of the charged offense.

A.    Mens Rea

      A person commits an assault if he “intentionally or knowingly threatens

another with imminent bodily injury[.]” TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(2). In his

brief, Damian quotes pages of testimony from the trial but he does not explain the

relevance of the testimony to any purported argument regarding the “imminent

                                          14
threat” or “intentional or knowing” requirements of the charged offense. He cites

no authorities, and he does not include any record cites to support his argument

that the State failed to establish he had the requisite mens rea for the charged

offense. Having failed to provide analysis or authorities regarding his mens rea

argument, Damian waived his issue on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (stating

appellant’s brief “must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions

made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); Russeau v.

State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (overruling points of error as

“inadequately briefed” when appellant did not provide argument or authority

regarding purported error).

B.    Deadly Weapon

      An assault is enhanced to “aggravated assault” if the actor “uses or exhibits a

deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.”            TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 22.02(a)(2). To sustain a deadly weapon finding, the deadly weapon must meet

the statutory definition, and the evidence must show that (1) the defendant used or

exhibited the deadly weapon while committing the crime at issue, and (2) others

were “actually endangered.” Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003); Callison v. State, 218 S.W.3d 822, 826 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007,

no pet.).

                                         15
      Even though a knife is not a deadly weapon per se, “it can be a deadly

weapon if the person using it intends to use it in a way in which it would be

capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Magana v. State, 230 S.W.3d

411, 414 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding evidence supported

finding pocketknife was deadly weapon) (citing Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30,

32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)); see also Clark v. State, 444 S.W.3d 671, 678 (Tex.

App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (holding pocketknife was deadly

weapon). It is not necessary that wounds be inflicted “before a knife can be

determined to be a deadly weapon.” Denham v. State, 574 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978); Dominique v. State, 598 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. Crim. App.

1980) (noting “wounds are not a necessary prerequisite for an object to be a deadly

weapon”).    “When no actual injury is sustained by the [complainant], the

prosecution must introduce evidence of other factors to establish that the knife is a

deadly weapon.” Magana, 230 S.W.3d at 414.

      It is the jury’s province “to determine whether an individual used a knife as

a deadly weapon by weighing the evidence before it on a case-by-case basis and

using that evidence to draw reasonable inferences.” Sauls v. State, No. 14-17-

00239-CR, 2019 WL 2535995, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 20,

2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Isassi, 330 S.W.3d

at 638). “The jury is free to consider all of the facts of the case, including any

                                         16
actual wounds inflicted or words spoken by the appellant, in deciding if the

weapon is deadly.” Williams v. State, 575 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

      “[O]bjects used to threaten deadly force are in fact deadly weapons.”

McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The plain language

of Section 1.07(a)(17)(B), which defines deadly weapon, “does not require that the

actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury.” Id. “[A]n object is a deadly

weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of

causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. To determine whether an instrument is

a deadly weapon, courts consider “words and other threatening actions by the

defendant,” including “the defendant’s proximity to the victim; the weapon’s

ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death, including the size, shape, and

sharpness of the weapon; and the manner in which the defendant used the

weapon.” Johnson v. State, 509 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). While

these are factors to consider, they are not “inexorable commands.” Id.

      Damian argues the evidence was insufficient to establish his pocketknife

was a deadly weapon. We disagree.

      The knife was admitted into evidence. In addition, the jury heard evidence

that Damian spat on Miller’s face, hit her, kicked her, pulled her arm, and punched

her, breaking her tooth. Miller testified that Damian was getting progressively

“out of control,” and she was “scared.” She testified that Damian pulled the knife

                                        17
from his pocket, opened it, and pointed it at her while threatening to “cut her” and

the landlord. The jury also heard Officer Organista and Sergeant Perez testify that

the knife was a deadly weapon. The jury thus heard evidence that Damian “used

or exhibited” the knife while threatening “to cut” Miller and that he came within

inches of her.    Based on the testimony from Miller, Officer Organista, and

Sergeant Perez, the jury could have concluded Miller was “actually endangered”

by Damian’s wielding of the knife. See Cates, 102 S.W.3d at 738.

       Relying on Banargent v. State, 228 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2007, pet ref’d), Damian argues that the knife was not a deadly weapon

because (1) there was no evidence “to show the size, shape, and sharpness of the

knife; other than a pocket knife;” (2) there was no evidence about “the manner in

which [Damian] used the weapon; such as pointed it, but nothing about how far or

distance from [Miller];” (3) there were no wounds inflicted by the knife; (4) there

was no evidence regarding the knife’s life-threatening capabilities; and (5) because

of Damian’s statements.

       In Banargent, a jury convicted the appellant of aggravated assault and found

he used a deadly weapon—a knife— during the assault. Id. at 395. On appeal, the

court held that there was sufficient evidence the appellant used a knife, the knife

was a “deadly weapon,” and appellant inflicted “serious bodily injury.” Id. at 398–

400.

                                        18
      Damian’s reliance on Banargent is misplaced for two reasons. First, the

indictment and the application paragraph of the charge in Banargent indicated the

appellant committed the aggravated assault by causing serious bodily injury to the

complainant by stabbing her and appellant “appear[ed] to direct his legal

sufficiency challenge to the evidence [] he used a knife, not to evidence that the

weapon he used was a deadly weapon[.]” Id. at 398. Second, while the Banargent

factors may be considered to determine whether a defendant used or exhibited a

deadly weapon, they are neither definitive nor exclusive. As we explained in

Schnizer v. State, while the Banargent factors “may be considered in determining

whether a particular knife qualifies as a deadly weapon,” the jury may also

consider other factors, including “words and other threatening actions by the

defendant” and the “defendant’s proximity” to the complainant. No. 01-20-00194-

CR, 2021 WL 4953917, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 26, 2021, pet.

ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (emphasis added); see also Sauls,

2019 WL 2535995, at *4 (noting Banargent factors “can be considered in

determining whether a particular knife qualifies as a deadly weapon.”) (emphasis

added). Ultimately, it “is for the jury to determine whether an individual used a

knife as a deadly weapon by weighing the evidence before it on a case-by-case

basis and using that evidence to draw reasonable inferences.” Id.

                                        19
      In any event, Damian is incorrect in asserting there was no evidence

presented as to any of the five Banargent factors The knife was admitted into

evidence. The jury was thus able to determine its size, shape, and sharpness.

Miller also testified that Damian pointed the knife at her, and the bodycam footage

confirms she told the police Damian pointed the knife at her. Although there was

no testimony that Miller was injured by the knife, such testimony was not required

because the indictment alleged Damian threatened Miller with the knife. Officer

Organista and Sergeant Perez also testified that the knife was a deadly weapon.

And Miller testified that when Damian took the knife out of his pocket, he opened

it and told her he was going to “cut” her and the landlord. There was thus evidence

concerning all five of the Banargent factors.

      We find the opinion in Rucker v. State, No. 03-19-00493-CR, 2021 WL

501113 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 11, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) instructive. In Rucker, the appellant was convicted of aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon—“intentionally or knowingly threatening [the

complainant] with imminent bodily injury and using a deadly weapon during the

commission of the offense.” Id. at *1. The complainant testified that Rucker was

holding a pocketknife and said he was going to “cut” her if she came onto his

                                         20
property.13 Id. She estimated that Rucker was approximately thirty feet away from

her when he threatened her. Id. She testified that Rucker “said he was going to cut

me because we keep bothering him and messing with his home.” Id. at *2.

      Rucker challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

Id. at *9. He argued the knife was not capable of causing death or bodily injury

because he was thirty feet from the complainant when he threatened her; she was

not injured; he only threatened to “cut” her, “which may or may not cause serious

bodily injury;” the pocketknife only had a three-inch blade and was not designed to

be a weapon; and Rucker did not “make any slashing, stabbing, or swiping motions

with the knife” that would suggest he intended to cause the complainant serious

bodily injury. Id. at *11.

      The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict, the evidence showed Rucker was moving toward the complainant while

holding a knife, which according to an officer’s testimony, was capable of “cutting

and stabbing.” Id. The knife was admitted into evidence, allowing the jury to

assess its characteristics. Id. The jury heard testimony that Rucker was “angry,

yelling, and cussing” as he approached the complainant and that he threatened to

13
      The property was a grassy area near a Jiffy Lube where the complainant worked.
      Rucker v. State, No. 03-19-00493-CR, 2021 WL 501113, *1 (Tex. App.—Austin
      Feb. 11, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The
      complainant testified Rucker was a transient man she had seen around the Jiffy
      Lube on several occasions. Id.

                                        21
“cut” her. Id. The complainant testified that Rucker held the knife toward her as if

he was going to stab her with it. Id. The court concluded that, based on the totality

of the circumstances, including the knife’s physical characteristics, Rucker’s words

and actions during the encounter, the manner in which he held the knife as he

approached the complainant, and her reaction to the threat, the jury could

reasonably have inferred Rucker used the knife in a way such that it could cause

the complainant serious bodily injury or death and, therefore, it was a deadly

weapon during the commission of the crime. Id.

      As in Rucker, we similarly conclude the evidence established Damian was

approaching Miller while holding a knife that according to two officers was a

deadly weapon. The knife was admitted into evidence, allowing the jury to assess

its size, shape, and other characteristics. The jury heard testimony that Damian

was angry, yelling at Miller, calling her names, spitting in her face, punching her in

the face, pulling her arm, and kicking her leg. And Miller testified that Damian,

standing inches away from her, pointed the knife at her and told her “he was going

to cut” her.

      Based on this evidence, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Damian

used the knife in a such a way that it could have caused Miller serious bodily

injury or death and, thus, it was a deadly weapon during the commission of the

                                         22
crime. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, as we must,

we hold the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s “deadly weapon” finding.

      We overrule Damian’s sole issue.

                                    Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                Veronica Rivas-Molloy
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           23