No. 05-02-01545-CR
Opinion Filed August 13, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MA02-51276-E/L. AFFIRMED
Before Justices JAMES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
Opinion By Justice FRANCIS.
A jury convicted Detric Antonio Price of assault, and the trial court sentenced him to 210 days in the county jail and a $500 fine. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
Dallas police officer Gregory Van Hook was dispatched to an accident scene at the intersection of Samuel and Buckner Boulevard. As Van Hook talked with paramedics and fire department personnel, he saw a man and woman sitting in a small car that was stopped in traffic. Van Hook identified appellant as the man he saw sitting in the passenger seat and appellant's wife as the person sitting in the driver's seat. Appellant and his wife were slapping each other. Van Hook initially thought the couple was playing, so he turned around and continued talking with firemen. A few moments later, Van Hook heard several car horns and turned around again to look at the small car. He saw appellant leaning on top of his wife in the driver's seat, hitting her with a closed fist. Van Hook testified he was standing fifteen to twenty-five feet from the front of the car, and clearly saw appellant hit his wife two or three times in the upper portion of her body. As Van Hook walked toward the car, he saw appellant grab his wife by both her arms and slam her against the driver's side door. Appellant then got out of the vehicle, took a small child from the back seat, and used the child as a shield. Van Hook ordered appellant to put the child back in the car. When appellant complied, Van Hook handcuffed appellant and waited for a backup officer. Van Hook testified appellant's wife, M.P., was crying, shaking, and talking very fast. M.P. told Van Hook she was afraid because appellant was beating on her, and she honked the horn to alert someone to help her. She told Van Hook she was driving appellant to the hospital for doctor-ordered tests, and told him he would need to get a ride home because she had other things to do. Appellant became angry and began hitting her. She told Van Hook the argument with appellant had been going on since the previous night when appellant threw a chair at her. Van Hook testified he saw bleeding scratches and red bruises on M.P.'s arms, shoulder, and chest area. She complained of back pain and pain from the scratches and bruises. M.P. told Van Hook that she had bipolar disorder and was taking medication. Photographs of M.P.'s injuries taken by Van Hook were offered into evidence without objection and published to the jury. M.P.'s written statement given at the scene was offered into evidence without objection and published to the jury. Van Hook also said that appellant appeared to have a seizure after he was handcuffed, but recovered when paramedics waved an ammonia capsule under his nose. Paramedics told Van Hook that appellant did not have a seizure and he did not receive further medical treatment. M.P. told the jury appellant never beat or hit her, and that she was the aggressor in the incident. M.P. stated she was bipolar and had not taken her medication for about four weeks. Appellant had a seizure disorder that prevented him from driving. When she and appellant argued about her wanting to drop him at the hospital and not stay to take him home, he called her a name. She slapped him across the face. Appellant called her another name and she slapped him again, hitting him repeatedly. Appellant grabbed both of M.P.'s wrists with one hand and honked the car horn with his other hand to get a police officer's attention. M.P. testified that appellant did not want to fight with her because he was aware that M.P. had stabbed her first husband. After appellant honked the horn, he got out of the car on the passenger side and reached into the back seat to get his three-year-old son. M.P. stated that while appellant was holding his son, she saw Van Hook push him against the car twice because the officer wanted appellant to put the child back in the car. M.P. saw appellant begin to have a seizure as he walked to a patrol car. M.P. saw the handcuffed appellant fall back on the ground. Paramedics and police officers were standing over him talking and laughing. M.P. stated appellant was on the ground for about ten minutes, then police put him in the patrol car and came to talk to her. M.P. testified the statements she made to Van Hook that appellant beat her and she begged him to not hit her, were false. M.P. stated the written statement she gave to Van Hook alleging that appellant threatened to punch her in the jaw, scratched her arms, grabbed her neck, and would not let her go even after she begged him, was also false. M.P. said appellant never hit her or caused her bodily injury, and the scratches on her arm occurred only because appellant was trying to stop her from hitting him. M.P. did not know how she received scratches to her chest area. Appellant testified he grabbed his wife's arms in self-defense to prevent her from hitting him. He said M.P. earlier told him that he needed to get a ride home from the doctor because she had something to do. When he questioned her further, she became angry and upset. They were stopped in traffic due to an accident, and his wife began yelling and screaming at him. Appellant called her a name, and she slapped him in the face. When appellant called M.P. a name again, she slapped appellant again and began hitting him. Appellant threw up his hands to protect himself, grabbed M.P.'s arms and pushed her away, then honked the horn to get a police officer's attention. Appellant testified M.P. stopped hitting him long enough for him to jump out of the car. He unbuckled his son from a carseat in the back, and when he stood up Van Hook was behind him. Appellant testified that while he was holding his son, Van Hook shoved him into the car. With one hand on his firearm, Van Hook ordered appellant to put the child back in the car. After appellant complied, Van Hook shoved appellant over the car and patted him down. When appellant was taken to the patrol car, he fell over into the street and had a seizure. Appellant testified he never hit M.P. or slammed her against the driver's side door. Van Hook did not see him hit M.P. because Van Hook's back was toward the car. Appellant did not know how M.P. got the bruises and scratches. He denied throwing a chair at her the night before. Appellant testified he was placed on deferred probation for five years in November 2000 for violation of protective order by assault. Applicable Law
A person commits assault if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(Vernon 2003). A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. See id. § 9.31. In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's rejection of a defense, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational fact finder would have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also would have found against appellant on the self-defense issue beyond a reasonable doubt. See Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). When a defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the rejection of a defense, the reviewing court reviews all of the evidence in a neutral light and asks whether the State's evidence taken alone is too weak to support the findings and whether the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 593-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). The State is not required to affirmatively produce evidence to refute a defendant's self-defense claim, but must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d 910 at 914. The issue of self-defense is an issue of fact to be determined by the fact finder. See id. at 913. A verdict of guilty is an implicit finding rejecting the defendant's self-defense theory. See id. at 914. Discussion
Appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's verdict in light of his self-defense claim. Appellant argues the only evidence of an assault came from Van Hook, and both appellant and M.P. refuted the officer's version of what occurred. Appellant asserts that because M.P. suffers from bipolar disorder and was not taking her medication at the time of the alleged assault, the written statement she gave to police was not correct. The State responds the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to prove appellant assaulted M.P. Van Hook saw appellant hitting M.P. with a closed fist and slamming her into the driver's side door. M.P.'s written statement given to Van Hook at the scene states appellant hit her, grabbed her by the neck, and scratched her arms. M.P.'s testimony at trial was that her written statement to Van Hook was false and appellant never hit her. M.P. claimed she was the aggressor, and appellant was only trying to prevent her from hitting him when he grabbed her arms. Appellant testified he did not hit M.P. and only grabbed her arms to prevent her from hitting him. The jury resolved the conflicts in the evidence and was free to accept or reject any or all of the defensive evidence. See Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913. Having reviewed the evidence under the appropriate standards, we conclude it is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. See id. at 914; Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 594; see also Reaves v. State, 970 S.W.2d 111, 118 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's two points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.