Court Opinion

ID: 9662490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:10:46.45874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.022512
License: Public Domain

OPINION
JOHN CAYCE, Chief Justice.
William Neagle appeals his conviction and six-month sentence for making a ter-*833roristie threat. In two points on appeal, appellant complains that the evidence is not legally and factually sufficient to support the “imminent” character of the alleged threat. We will affirm.
Appellant owned property in the Rolling Hills Shores subdivision in Hood County. In early 1999, the Rolling Hills homeowners’ association filed suit against appellant for violating the deed restrictions on his property. On February 13, 1999, appellant attended the monthly meeting of the homeowners’ association and expressed anger at the association’s legal action against him. Although attendees attempted to explain their actions to appellant, his anger intensified. Appellant then referred to a murder/suicide that had occurred in the subdivision approximately one year earlier stating that if the suit continued against him, “he would make Martin look like a Sunday school teacher.” As a result, appellant was arrested and charged with making a terroristic threat. After a trial, the jury found appellant guilty.
Appellant filed a motion for directed verdict alleging that any threat he posed was not “imminent.” The trial court denied his motion and sentenced him to six months in the county jail. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial alleging the same grounds; however, this motion was also denied.
In two points, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, he argues that because his comments to the homeowners’ association constituted only conditional threats of future violence, the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to place them in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Appellant contends that he conditioned his future actions on the taking of his home as a result of litigation prosecuted by the homeowners’ association, or at least on the continued prosecution of such litigation.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 389-90 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 423 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 975, 113 S.Ct. 1422, 122 L.Ed.2d 791 (1993). The critical inquiry is whether, after so viewing the evidence, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 844, 118 S.Ct. 125, 139 L.Ed.2d 75 (1997). This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither party. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Evidence is factually insufficient if it is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the available evidence. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11. Therefore, we must determine whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the verdict, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly out*834weighed by contrary proof. Id. In performing this review, we are to give due deference to the fact finder’s determinations. Id. at 8-9; Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 136. Consequently, we may find the evidence factually insufficient only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9, 12; Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).
A person makes a terroristic threat if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with the intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.07(a)(2) (Vernon 1994). Imminent means “[n]ear at hand; mediate rather than immediate; close rather than touching; impending; on the point of happening; threatening; menacing; perilous.” Black’s Law Dictionary 750 (6th ed.1990). In In re A.C., we rejected arguments virtually identical to the ones appellant raises in this case. 48 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied). In A.C., we held that
[cjonditioning a threat of harm on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event does not necessarily mean that the harmful consequences threatened are not imminent. Rather, the focus of the inquiry should be whether the complainant was afraid of imminent serious bodily injury at the time of the offense.

Id.

Here, eight witnesses testified about the effect appellant’s words had on them. Many were afraid that appellant would commit acts similar to those committed by Don Martin. One board member stated that she understood his statements to be a threat on her life and believed that his actions would come relatively soon. Another testified that appellant’s remarks terrified her to the point of causing her to stop sleeping in her front bedroom. Yet another board member testified that he believed the appellant would actually shoot him relatively soon. Other members resigned their board positions or discontinued attending meetings after this incident for fear that appellant might carry out his threats.
We conclude that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to establish the “imminent” element of the offense. It is clear from the record that the reference to the Martin murder/suicide, a horrific event well known to the community, was calculated to cause the attendees to immediately fear appellant due to the imminent possibility that he would react violently to their pursuit of the litigation. Appellant’s threat, in the minds of the victims, was real, near at hand, and highly threatening. The jury could infer from appellant’s acts, words, and conduct that he intended to place the board members in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. We overrule appellant’s points and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
DAUPHINOT, J. filed a dissenting opinion.