Court Opinion

ID: 9554465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 07:07:57.020824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:24.051725
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 4, 2023

                                     In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-22-00890-CR

                    TIMOTHY WADE PEGUE, Appellant
                                 V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                         Rockwall County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. CR2-21-0357

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
              Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel
                       Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
      In one issue, appellant Timothy Wade Pegue challenges his conviction for

assault causing bodily injury to a family member. See TEX. PENAL CODE §

22.01(a)(1). We affirm.

                                BACKGROUND

      Royce City police officers were called out to the Pegue residence on February

4, 2021. Sharon Pegue, Timothy Wade Pegue’s sister, made the call to 911 to report

a physical altercation between Pegue and her sister-in-law, Ladonya. Sharon stated

Pegue attacked Ladonya as she attempted to break up the altercation.
      Officer John Bivins arrived at the scene and briefly made contact with

Ladonya. The State moved to admit Officer Bivins’s body camera footage from the

evening. Pegue objected the statements made by Ladonya on the video were hearsay.

The State responded by arguing the statements were exceptions to the hearsay rule

as present sense impressions, excited utterances, and statements for medical

treatment. The trial court overruled Pegue’s objection, ruling the statements were

exceptions to the hearsay rule and nontestimonial in nature.

      Officer Bivins testified he was not aware Ladonya was the victim until she

told him Pegue assaulted both her and Sharon. Officer Bivins observed three to four

large knots on Ladonya’s forehead personally and believed those type of injuries

would have caused Ladonya pain. He entered the residence and encountered Pegue,

who stated he had a verbal disturbance between Ladonya and himself. Pegue said he

told Ladonya to leave and attempted to force her out of the home. Pegue stated at

some point, Ladonya hit her head on the table.

      Detective Cindy Carr also was present at the scene. She explained she spoke

with Ladonya and observed large knots of her head she believed “looked painful.”

Detective Carr stated Ladonya was upset and crying, but refused medical treatment

when it was called out. Detective Carr agreed she does not know who instigated the

fight but she believed it was Pegue based on the investigation conducted. Detective

Carr also testified Pegue was uncooperative while being arrested and almost had to

be “tazed.”

                                        –2–
      Eric Moody, the administrator for the Rockwall County Jail phone system,

testified regarding jail phone calls Pegue made. The morning following his arrest,

Pegue stated on two different jail calls, that he “beat the b* up,” “she got it good,”

and “she had knots all over her head” while laughing.

      The State provided testimony from expert witness Sara Campos, an assistant

clinical director at the Genesis Women’s Shelter and Support. Campos explained to

the jury how victims of domestic violence often feel they will not be believed when

reporting abuse and have fear and blame in the situation. Prior to Campos’s

testimony, Pegue introduced an affidavit of non-prosecution signed by Ladonya in

this case. Ladonya did not testify.

      The jury found Pegue guilty of assault as charged. After he pleaded true to an

enhancement paragraph, the trial court made an affirmative finding of family

violence and sentenced Pegue to 210 days in the Rockwall County Jail. This appeal

followed.

                                      ANALYSIS

      In his sole issue, Pegue argues the evidence was insufficient to support the

conviction for assault. Pegue alleges without Ladonya’s testimony regarding any

pain suffered, no rational juror could have found bodily injury was proved beyond a

reasonable doubt.

      We review a sufficiency challenge by considering all of the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict and determine, based on the evidence and

                                         –3–
reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational jury could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

318–19 (1979); Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013);

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We defer to the fact

finder’s credibility and weight determinations because the fact finder is the sole

judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. See

Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We presume the

factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the verdict, and we defer

to its resolution. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 922. The fact finder can choose to believe

all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties. Chambers v. State, 805

S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). “Circumstantial evidence is as probative

as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence

alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). Evidence is sufficient if “the inferences necessary to establish

guilt are reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence when

considered in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900,

903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

      The essential elements of the offense are those as defined by the

hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Hernandez v. State, 556 S.W.3d 308,

315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); McCall v. State, 635 S.W.3d 261, 272 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2021, pet. ref’d). A hypothetically correct jury charge reflects the governing

                                         –4–
law, the indictment, the State's burden of proof and theories of liability, and an

adequate description of the offense for the particular case. Hernandez, 556 S.W.3d

at 308. It includes the statutory elements of the offense as modified by the

indictment. See id. at 312–13; Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012). The relevant elements here are (1) Pegue intentionally, knowingly, or

recklessly (2) caused bodily injury to the complainant. TEX. PENAL CODE §

22.01(a)(1).

      “Bodily injury” means “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical

condition.” Id. § 1.07(a)(8). Any physical pain, however minor, suffices to establish

bodily injury. Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). A

factfinder may infer a victim actually suffered physical pain, and no witness–

including the victim–need testify the victim felt pain. Coleman v. State, 631 S.W.3d

744, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. ref’d). A factfinder is “free to

‘use common sense and apply common knowledge, observation, and experience

gained in the ordinary affairs of life when giving effect to the inferences that may

reasonably be drawn from the evidence.’” Aguilar v. State, 263 S.W.3d 430, 434

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (quoting Taylor v. State, 71

S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref’d)). Thus, a “fact finder may

infer that a victim actually felt or suffered physical pain because people of common

intelligence understand pain and some of the natural causes of it.” Garcia v. State,

                                        –5–
367 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). This includes inferring physical pain

from an altercation itself even without direct evidence. Aguilar, 263 S.W.3d at 434.

      Pegue argues because Ladonya did not testify, there was no way to establish

she felt pain. However, the State provided evidence of “pain” through the other

witnesses who testified. Officer Bivins and Detective Carr both encountered

Ladonya and observed large knots on her head. Both officers, through their training

and experience, as well as common knowledge, opined the knots would have caused

Ladonya pain. The jury also saw the body camera footage that showed Ladonya’s

injuries, as well as photographs of her head showing the knots admitted into

evidence. Even the jail calls Pegue placed where he stated he beat Ladonya up to the

point she had “knots all over her head” show he was aware of the injuries he caused.

      Based on the evidence provided, the jury could have reasonably used its

common sense and common knowledge to draw the inference that the injuries

Ladonya suffered during the assault caused her pain. The evidence was sufficient to

support Pegue’s conviction for assault. We overrule Pegue’s sole issue.

                                 CONCLUSION

      Based on the record before us, we find the evidence sufficient and overrule

Pegue’s issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                          /Robbie Partida-Kipness/
220890f.u05                               ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
Do Not Publish                            JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                        –6–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

TIMOTHY WADE PEGUE,                          On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant                                    Law No. 2, Rockwall County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. CR2-21-0357.
No. 05-22-00890-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
                                             Kipness. Justices Reichek and Miskel
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of August 2023.

                                       –7–