Opinion
No. 05-03-00646-CR
Opinion Filed July 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-73399-P. Affirm.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG.
OPINION
Corey Renaude Walker appeals from the trial court's judgment of conviction for aggravated assault. In four points of error, Walker challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
Walker was arrested and charged with aggravated assault. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. The State called three witnesses at trial. The first was Officer Adam Bush, who responded to a call reporting a disturbance at the Highland Village Apartments in Dallas early in the morning of September 8, 2002. Bush was directed to the apartment leased by Christine Williams, the complainant below. Williams's apartment was on the second floor, and Bush described seeing blood on the stairs as he approached the apartment. He described "droplets" that got heavier as he went upstairs. Bush testified that when he first saw Williams all he could see was blood all over her face. He stated that "there was so much blood, you couldn't tell where she was cut and where she wasn't cut." He stated that he could see cuts on Williams once the blood was wiped away. (Ambulance personnel were tending to Williams in her apartment when Bush and his partner arrived on the scene.) Bush described a two to three inch laceration right underneath Williams's ear and a cut on her eyebrow on the left side of her face. He testified Williams was "real unsteady." She was crying and having trouble speaking to him because she was so upset. By talking with Williams, he determined that she had been cut within ten minutes of his arrival. Bush related Williams's description of the incident in which she was hurt: he described an altercation outside the apartment building between Walker and Williams's young son that ended with Walker slapping the boy. She told Bush she went downstairs and confronted Walker, and he pushed and slapped her and then went inside his apartment. Williams told Bush she threw a bottle through Walker's window. Walker came out of the apartment and cut her while she was on the stairwell. Williams identified Walker by his street name and told Bush he lived downstairs from her. Bush then left and knocked on the door of the apartment downstairs; no one answered. There were people standing around at this time, but none shared any information about what had happened with Bush or his partner. Bush called the Physical Evidence Section ("PES") to come and take pictures of the scene and of Williams. Bush testified the pictures fairly and accurately represented what Williams looked like at the time he met with her, and the pictures were admitted into evidence without objection. Bush further testified that Williams's injuries were consistent with her having been cut by a knife that was at least three inches long. He stated that a knife of such a length would "definitely" be a deadly weapon, capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. On cross-examination, Bush agreed that the only information about the incident in the police report had been provided by Williams. He agreed that the report did not discuss Williams's having thrown a bottle through Walker's window. He further agreed the report did not discuss Williams's having called the police earlier the same night to report the altercation that took place concerning Walker's treatment of her young son. Finally, Bush agreed that Williams told him she did not see what Walker cut her with. The State's second witness was Detective Patrick Delke, who was charged with investigating the incident in detail. Delke met with Williams four days after the incident. He testified that she had cuts on the left side of her face, above her eye and along her jaw area. Her face was black and blue and swollen on the left side. Delke examined Williams's cuts. He testified he is familiar with knife wounds, and these cuts were consistent with Williams's having been cut by a knife. He further testified that a knife capable of causing the kinds of injuries inflicted on Williams's face would be considered a deadly weapon, because it could cause serious bodily injury or death. Williams identified Walker to Delke by the street name, "C Murder." Delke prepared a photo lineup, including Walker's photograph; Williams identified Walker as her assailant. On cross-examination, Delke agreed that it is easy to identify someone you already know in a photo lineup, but identifying someone you know as a perpetrator of an offense is not the same as telling the truth about who committed the offense. Finally, the State called the complainant, Christine Williams. On direct examination Williams explained that at the time of the incident she lived in the apartment with her three young children and her invalid father. She testified that Walker lived downstairs with his child's mother. She related the incident that had occurred earlier on the day in question involving her four-year-old son. Her son told her that Walker hit him; she confronted Walker and told him not to touch her children. Later in the evening, according to Williams, she and Walker were involved in another confrontation in the parking lot of the apartments. The two exchanged words about his hitting her son. They argued verbally; then Walker hit her once in her eye and continued hitting her until neighbors broke it up. Williams estimated the beating lasted five or ten minutes. When she returned to her apartment either Williams or a friend called the police, and they responded to the call. They knocked on Walker's door, but he did not come to the door. After the police left, Williams testified, she was upset. She picked up a bottle and threw it through the living room window of Walker's apartment. According to Williams, Walker then came outside his apartment door holding a knife. She ran upstairs to try and get away from Walker, but he pulled her over the stair railing onto the concrete and started to cut her and kick her. She testified the knife had a blade that was two to three inches long and that Walker cut the left side of her face with it: she believed he was trying to cut her throat. Finally, a friend helped her upstairs, and Williams called the police again. Williams identified Walker in court as her assailant, and she identified him again from the photo lineup. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Williams why she had not given a complete story to the police who responded initially to her call. Williams said she did tell the officers everything that had happened. She confirmed that she treated herself after the incident and did not go to the hospital. She testified that was because she had no one to stay with her children and father. The defense called only one witness, Laletta Bursey, who leased the apartment downstairs from Williams and who was the father of Walker's child. Bursey testified that she knew Williams and that she and Williams had been arguing over a period of several days before the incident that was the basis of the trial. She said Williams had been throwing things from her apartment down to the area outside Bursey's apartment. Bursey also testified that Williams and Walker had gotten into arguments before that day because Williams was always spitting at him and threatening him. She testified that she had been present for the incident between Williams's son and Walker. She denied Walker — or anyone else — had slapped the child. She also testified that the incident with the child had happened earlier, on a different date than Williams had testified. Bursey testified that Walker did not live with her in the apartment downstairs from Williams; he just visited his child there. On the night Williams was injured, Walker had left her apartment. He was not there when Williams threw the bottle through her window. Bursey testified that she heard the bottle break the window, but she did not see anyone outside and did not hear anyone knock on her door.Standard of Review
In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 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); Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In determining the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light, and we will not reverse unless the evidence of the appellant's guilt, taken alone, is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or the evidence contrary to the verdict is so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 WL 840786, at *7 (Tex.Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2004). In both sufficiency reviews, we recognize the jury as the exclusive judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony. Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 598 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).Sufficiency of Evidence of Deadly Weapon
In his first three points of error, Walker challenges: (1) the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the deadly weapon finding, (2) the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the deadly weapon finding, and (3) the factual sufficiency of the evidence showing the knife was a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is:(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 1.07(17) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Walker argues first that a knife was not produced or admitted into evidence, and there was insufficient evidence to show the knife's capacity to cause death or serious injury. He suggests the complainant's injuries were caused by a ring appellant was wearing when he hit appellant during an earlier altercation. The State must prove that a knife was used in this offense and that the knife used was, in the manner of its use or intended use, capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See id.; see also Jackson v. State, 913 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.). The State does not have to introduce the knife into evidence to meet this burden. Id. at 698. We may consider wounds as a factor in determining whether a weapon qualifies as a deadly weapon. Morales v. State, 633 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). Expert testimony is not required in making such a determination. Id. We look first at evidence supporting the finding of a deadly weapon. Williams testified she saw appellant with a knife, and she described the knife as having a blade between two and three inches long. Officer Bush testified Williams's injuries were consistent with her having been cut by a knife that was at least three inches long. He stated that such a knife would "definitely" be a deadly weapon, capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Detective Delke also examined Williams's cuts, and he testified that Williams's wounds were consistent with cuts made by a knife. He also testified that a knife capable of causing the kinds of injuries inflicted on Williams's face would be considered a deadly weapon, because it could cause serious bodily injury or death. Finally, the record includes pictures of Williams on the night of the incident: the serious nature of the wounds is apparent. Looking at this evidence supporting the verdict, we conclude a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Thus, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding of a deadly weapon. Next, we look at the evidence in a neutral light, considering any evidence in the record that would be contrary to the deadly weapon finding. Walker stresses that the only evidence concerning a knife comes from Williams herself, and she is not a credible witness. Although the only direct evidence of a knife did come from Williams, both police officers testified that Williams's wounds were consistent with injuries caused by a knife. Walker also challenges Officer Bush's credibility, and he stresses that Bush's report said Williams did not see the weapon that cut her. Issues of credibility are for the jury. See Whitaker, 977 S.W.2d at 598. Jurors were free to believe Williams and Bush or to reject their testimony. But we conclude that the evidence supporting the deadly weapon finding, taken alone, is not too weak to support the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt, and we further conclude that the evidence contrary to the deadly weapon finding is not so strong that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. See Zuniga, 2004 WL 840786 at *7. Accordingly, the evidence is factually sufficient to support the deadly weapon finding.