No. 08-02-00443-CR.
January 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 210th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, (TC#20020D01553).
Before Panel No. 1. LARSEN, McCLURE, and CHEW, JJ.
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice.
Rudy Anguiano appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for endangering a child, for which he received a two-year state jail sentence. His sole point of error challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. We affirm.
Facts
Midmorning on March 3, 2002, firefighters responded to a call that a car had crashed against the curb in the 1300 block of Overland in Central El Paso. Officer Matthew Roddam saw Anguiano in the drivers' seat, apparently passed out, and a young child strapped into a car seat in the passenger seat of the car. Roddam testified that the child appeared to be reaching for a syringe that was more than half full of a clear substance and was located about eight to ten inches away from the child. The needle on the syringe was not covered. The child was not crying or otherwise injured. Anguiano smelled of alcohol and had needle marks on his arm. He was originally charged with endangering a child and possession of heroin, but the heroin charge was dropped because the State's testing lab determined there was not enough liquid present in the syringe to allow for testing. At trial, Roddam testified that he and his partner awakened Anguiano and removed the baby from the car. The child's mother testified the child was born April 24, 2001. The trial court found Anguiano guilty of endangering a child, and sentenced him to two years in a state jail facility. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Anguiano challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of the charged offense, and asks this Court to render a judgment of not guilty. He alleges his son was not in imminent danger of bodily injury, that the danger was only potential. Procedurally, Anguiano makes a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, which Texas courts interpret as a legal sufficiency challenge. Davila v. State, 930 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd). In order to ascertain whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court reviews legal sufficiency in the light most favorable to the verdict. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), overruled on other grounds, Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Anguiano was found guilty of placing his son in imminent danger of bodily harm. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.041(c) (Vernon 2003). Anguiano asserts that although a syringe near a child is a potentially dangerous situation, it does not support a finding of imminent danger. He points to the fact that although the child was reaching for the syringe, it was eight to ten inches away. He says the testimony of Roddam was not enough to establish imminent danger. The State responds by detailing all the possible bodily injuries the child could have suffered had he actually gotten hold of the syringe, including poisoning by whatever substance may have been in the syringe. Anguiano relies on Millslagle v. State, 81 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref'd) for the notion that potential danger is not enough to support the finding against him. In that case, the father of a child was charged with endangerment when he left the child in a locked car while ingesting drugs in a nearby bathroom. The court held it is not enough that the child was in a potentially dangerous situation, but the conduct must threaten the child with immediate, impending death, bodily injury, or impairment. Id. at 898. Taking Millslagle into account, we find it is enough that the child was reaching for the exposed syringe and that the syringe was within his reach. We note the court did not say that death, bodily injury, or impairment must actually occur, but only that it be immediate and impending. The State established as much with Roddam's testimony. We hold the child was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Appellant's sole point of error is overruled. Conclusion
Having overruled Anguiano's sole point of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.