From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hinojosa v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Feb 23, 2005
No. 04-03-00860-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2005)

Opinion

No. 04-03-00860-CR

Delivered and Filed: February 23, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 841562, Honorable Monica E. Guerrero, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.

Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Jose F. Hinojosa appeals his conviction of assaulting his wife causing bodily injury. Hinojosa challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that he caused bodily injury to his wife by hitting her in the forehead with his head and that he had the necessary intent to cause her bodily injury. We affirm the trial court's judgment. A person's intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as the acts, words, and conduct of the accused. Bustamante v. State, 106 S.W.3d 738, 740-41 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Williams v. State, 82 S.W.3d 557, 566 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In our factual sufficiency review, we must consider all of the evidence to determine whether the judgment is "so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust." Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). We are not permitted to reweigh the evidence, rather we defer to the trier-of-fact's findings, particularly those based on credibility determinations. Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404, 407-09 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Officer Michael C. Alonzo responded to a dispatch for a disturbance. The dispatch was in response to a phone call from Hinojosa's daughter, Priscilla, who was frightened by her parents' arguing. Officer Alonzo stated that Hinojosa answered the door. Hinojosa's wife, Rita, was visibly upset and crying. Officer Alonzo took Rita into the kitchen to question her. He noticed that she had a fresh contusion in the center of her forehead with a small cut or abrasion. Rita told Officer Alonzo that she had caught her husband talking to another female on the phone. When she confronted Hinojosa, he "denied it, got upset, and actually headbutted her, actually hit her in the forehead with his own head." Rita stated that she had a very bad headache. Officer Alonzo also spoke with Priscilla, who confirmed the information provided by her mother. Officer Alonzo did not mention Priscilla in his report. Officer Alonzo did not observe any injuries on Hinojosa. Rita testified that she and her husband had a loud argument after she discovered her husband talking to someone on the phone. Rita denied telling Officer Alonzo that Hinojosa had hit her. Rita stated that she had a bruise on her face from a few days earlier when she was accidentally hit with a bucket while cleaning the pool. Rita stated that Officer Alonzo did not ask her about the bruise or its cause. Priscilla testified that she called the police because her parents were arguing. Priscilla stated that she answered the door when the police arrived. Priscilla stated that her mother was crying but did not have any marks on her. Priscilla stated that the police officer spoke with her mother in the kitchen. Priscilla stated that her mother had a bruise on her forehead from an injury she sustained while cleaning the pool. Priscilla stated that she told the police officer that the bruise was from cleaning the pool. Officer Alonzo was re-called and testified that neither Rita nor Priscilla told him that Rita's injury was caused by a bucket a few days earlier. Officer Alonzo stated that he would be surprised if Rita denied that Hinojosa hit her. Officer Alonzo stated that Rita's injury was a fresh mark. Officer Alonzo's testimony is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Hinojosa's intent may be inferred from the fact that he was upset and hit Rita in the forehead with his head. Officer Alonzo's testimony regarding Rita's statement at the scene supports a finding that Hinojosa hit Rita with his head causing her bodily injury. Although Rita denied the occurrence and the cause of her injury at trial, we defer to the jury's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Hinojosa v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Feb 23, 2005
No. 04-03-00860-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2005)
Case details for

Hinojosa v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSE F. HINOJOSA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Feb 23, 2005

Citations

No. 04-03-00860-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2005)