IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-03-00333-CR
Robert Earl Harrison,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 199th District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court # 199-81868-02
MEMORANDUM Opinion
This is an appeal of a conviction for assault on a public servant. We will affirm.
Appellant contends that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient. The indictment alleged that Appellant caused bodily injury to the victim by kicking him in the leg, cutting him on the finger with a razor blade, and cutting him on the finger with an unknown object; and the jury so found. As Appellant’s brief points out, the victim testified that it “hurt” when Appellant kicked the victim’s legs. Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant caused the victim physical pain in kicking the victim’s legs. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1.07(a)(8), 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Herrin v. State, 125 S.W.3d 436, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Accordingly, the evidence that he did so is legally sufficient. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, and giving due deference to the jury’s credibility determinations, the jury was rationally justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant caused the victim physical pain in kicking the victim’s legs. See Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 668, at *20 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2004); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly, the evidence that he did so is factually sufficient. We overrule Appellant’s issue.
We affirm the judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Justice Vance concurs with a note. I believe we owe it to the litigants, the higher courts, the Bench and Bar, and the public generally to provide more of the facts and our analysis in memorandum opinions such as this, particularly in a case involving a twenty-five year sentence. The majority opinion points only to testimony supporting the verdict and summarily affirms the judgment. I concur in the result, but note additional facts upon which Harrison makes his legal and factual insufficiency argument. Harrison argues that no witness testified that Harrison brandished any sort of weapon or object. The officer who was the victim of the assault testified that he did not know how he had been cut. He only knew that he was not cut before the fight with Harrison began and noticed afterward that he had been cut. The victim could not recall how many times he had been kicked by Harrison. However, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is legally sufficient. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2788-89, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Viewing the evidence in a neutral light, and giving due deference to the jury’s credibility determinations, the jury was rationally justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Harrison caused bodily injury to the victim. See Zuniga v. State, No. 539-02, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 668, at *20 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2004.) The evidence is factually sufficient.)
Opinion delivered and filed October 13, 2004
Affirmed
Do not publish
[CRPM]