Opinion
No. 14-03-00446-CR.
Memorandum Opinion filed March 30, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 10th District Court, Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 02CR0029. Affirmed.
Panel consists of Justices FOWLER, EDELMAN, and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Donja Lin Freeland-Riddle appeals a conviction for injury to an elderly person on the ground that the complainant's testimony was legally and factually insufficient to overcome her testimony that she was acting in self-defense. We affirm. In reviewing legal sufficiency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 753-54 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). In addressing a challenge to the factual sufficiency of evidence to reject a defense, we review all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the State's evidence taken alone is too weak to support the finding and whether the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Where a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense, the State is not required to affirmatively produce evidence to refute that claim, but only to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 594; Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex.Crim. App. 1991). In this case, the substance of appellant's challenge is that her testimony of self-defense was unbending whereas the complainant's testimony gave an improbable version of the events which was not sufficient to convince any rational jury that appellant was not acting in self-defense. However, this unsupported contention, pertaining solely to the credibility of the witnesses, does not even address the standard for legal sufficiency and is grossly inadequate to meet the standard for factual insufficiency. Therefore, appellant's two issues are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.