Thieu Quang Bui v. State

44 Citing cases

  1. Perales v. State

    No. 04-08-00461-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 8, 2009)

    Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(46) (Vernon 2003). Although a quart sized beer bottle is not a deadly weapon per se, it can become a deadly weapon if, in the manner of its use, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd) (listing a Coke bottle as an object found to be a deadly weapon based on the manner of its use); Enriquez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, no pet.) (finding an empty sixteen ounce soft drink bottle with a styrofoam sleeve around it may be a deadly weapon when used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury); Compton v. State, 759 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no pet.) (holding a quart sized beer bottle with the bottom broken out, leaving a jagged edge can be a deadly weapon). In this case, the State was required to show that the bottle used by Perales was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury based on the manner of its use.

  2. Martinez v. State

    Nos. 01-06-01164-CR, 01-06-01165-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 2, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    The attorney may state an opinion based on the evidence in the record, as long as the opinion does not constitute unsworn testimony. Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 345 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). B. Expression of Opinion About Credibility of Officer

  3. Alexander v. State

    No. 03-07-00711-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2008)

    In this context, we turn to our review of the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant's conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. To support his contention that the State must prove intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, appellant relies on Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd.), and Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). These cases do not support appellant's argument.

  4. Medina v. State

    No. 04-21-00562-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 12, 2023)

    "A deadly weapon can be anything that in the manner of its use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury." Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). A stool is not a deadly weapon per se, but can become one if, in the manner of its use, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

  5. Barnett v. State

    344 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. App. 2011)

    We may also assume that Coyle did not object because the law allows the fact-finder to determine whether an object was a deadly weapon based on lay witness testimony alone. Cruz v. State, 576 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Bailey v. State, 46 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref'd); Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 345 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd).

  6. Barnett v. State

    344 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    We may also assume that Coyle did not object because the law allows the fact-finder to determine whether an object was a deadly weapon based on lay witness testimony alone. Cruz v. State, 576 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); Bailey v. State, 46 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. ref'd); Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 345 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). Barnett has failed to meet the first Strickland prong as to this evidence.

  7. James v. State

    Nos. 05-08-01332-CR, 05-08-01333-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 22, 2010)

    In determining whether a hand or fist is a deadly weapon, the jury may consider all of the evidence presented, including "the words of the accused, the intended use of the weapon, the size and shape of the weapon, the testimony of the victim that she feared for her life, the severity of wounds inflicted, and testimony as to the weapon's potential for deadliness." Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 343 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd); see also Denham v. State, 574 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Bethel v. State, 842 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). Appellant was also charged with intentionally and knowingly causing penetration of the female sexual organ and mouth and anus of Dominique Yarbrough without her consent by means of his sexual organ.

  8. Escobar v. State

    Nos. 2-08-352-CR, 2-09-185-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2010)

    Factors that a jury may consider in determining whether an object used in the commission of a theft is a deadly weapon include (1) words of the accused, (2) the intended use of the weapon, (3) the size and shape of the weapon, (4) testimony by the victim that he feared death or serious bodily injury, (5) the severity of wounds — if inflicted, (6) the manner in which the assailant allegedly used the object, (7) physical proximity of the parties, and (8) testimony as to the weapon's potential for causing death or serious bodily injury. See Brown v. State, 716 S.W.2d 939, 946-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (discussing factors used to determine whether an object qualifies as a deadly weapon); see also Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 341-42 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd.) (same).

  9. Holland v. State

    No. 14-07-00762-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 6, 2009)

    It is improper for a prosecutor to inject personal opinion because jurors may infer that the prosecutor's opinion was based on outside information not available to the jury. Boyd v. State, 643 S.W.2d 700, 706 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1983); Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 345 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). However, a prosecutor may argue her opinion concerning issues in the case so long as the opinion is based on the evidence in the record and does not constitute unsworn testimony.

  10. Olivares v. State

    No. 07-07-0457-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2008)

    However, the fact that the item in question is not a per se deadly weapon does not mean it could not be found to be a deadly weapon based upon the manner of its use or intended use. Id. (explaining that the use or intended use must be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury). It is not, however, required that the State prove that the item in question did in fact cause serious bodily injury. See Bui v. State, 964 S.W.2d 335, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). In ascertaining whether the particular item is a deadly weapon, it need only be used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Bailey v. State, 38 S.W.3d 157, 158-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).