In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00290-CR
____________________
BRETT TANNER HERRINGTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10,467
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Brett Tanner Herrington guilty of assault, as a lesser included
offense of aggravated assault as alleged in the indictment. The trial court assessed
as punishment one year of confinement in county jail, probated for two years, and
a $500 fine. On appeal, Herrington contends the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction because the State failed to disprove his assertions of self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt.
1
“[T]he Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard
that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is
sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). We
assess all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d
9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under the Jackson standard, we “must give
deference to ‘the responsibility of the trier of fact to fairly resolve conflicts in
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic
facts to ultimate facts.’” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at
318–19). “[I]t is not necessary that every fact point directly and independently to
the defendant’s guilt; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined
and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances.” Johnson v. State, 871
S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
The defendant bears the burden of producing some evidence to support his
claim of self-defense. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003). Once the defendant produces some evidence to support his defense, the
2
State bears the burden of persuasion to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. On appeal
we look not to whether the State presented evidence which refuted
appellant’s self-defense testimony, but rather we determine whether
after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact 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.
Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). “Defensive
evidence which is merely consistent with the physical evidence at the scene of the
alleged offense will not render the State’s evidence insufficient since the credibility
determination of such evidence is solely within the jury’s province and the jury is
free to accept or reject the defensive evidence.” Id. The jury’s determination of
guilt includes an implicit finding against the theory of self-defense. Id.
A person generally “is justified in using force against another when and to
the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.” Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 9.31(a) (West 2011). The use of force is not justified “in
response to verbal provocation alone[.]” Id. § 9.31(b)(1). A person is not required
to retreat before using force if the person neither provoked the person against
3
whom the force is used, nor is engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is
used. Id. § 9.31(e).
The jury heard testimony that animosity had existed between Herrington and
the victim, Thomas Barclay, for many years. In his youth, Herrington worked for
Barclay and Herrington testified that Barclay had denied him his rightfully-earned
wages.
On the date of the offense, Barclay went to a nightclub and encountered
Herrington for the first time in many years. According to Barclay, Herrington
walked up to him that night and stated that he would kill Barclay before he died.
Barclay claimed he tried to avoid Herrington that evening, but Herrington
approached him a second time and said, “‘Let’s dance[,]’” which Barclay
understood to suggest that they fight. At some point later in the evening, Barclay
entered the restroom and noticed Herrington at the back of the room. Herrington
demanded that Barclay leave the restroom. Barclay did not leave immediately, but
when he did turn to leave Herrington unexpectedly struck Barclay with his fist.
Barclay claimed he had one hand at his side and was reaching for the door with the
other. Barclay admitted he carried a pocketknife in his pocket, but he denied
threatening Herrington at any point in the evening. Barclay testified that he lost
4
consciousness when Herrington struck him. Barclay sustained a broken jaw and a
fractured nose.
A friend of Barclay’s testified as an eyewitness to the assault. The witness
stated that Herrington told Barclay to get out and Barclay responded that he would
when he finished using the restroom. He did not see Barclay with a weapon and
did not see Barclay threaten Herrington in any way before Herrington hit Barclay.
The witness stated that Barclay turned to leave, then turned to look back, and then
Herrington hit Barclay on the jaw. Herrington told the witness, “‘If you say
anything, I’m going to whoop your ass.’”
An acquaintance of Barclay’s testified that he was present when Herrington
approached Barclay on the dance floor and later in the restroom when Herrington
told Barclay to leave. According to this witness, Barclay made no threatening
move towards Herrington. He stated that Herrington struck Barclay while Barclay
was reaching for the door to leave the restroom, then Herrington hit Barclay
several more times as Barclay slid to the floor. When the witness tried to intervene,
Herrington told him to get out of the way or he would do the same thing to him.
A former employee of Barclay’s, who is married to Barclay’s ex-wife,
testified that Barclay had a bad reputation for dishonesty and aggressiveness.
According to this witness, Barclay carries a clip-on knife with a three to four inch
5
blade. In 1998, the witness had heard Barclay say of Herrington that if he ever
caught him somewhere, he would kill him. He conveyed the threat to Herrington.
Herrington testified that Barclay tried to shake his hand when they first
encountered each other at the nightclub. Herrington claimed that he asked Barclay
to leave the restroom because he did not want to be backed into a corner by a
person he knew wanted to harm him. According to Herrington, Barclay blocked
the exit when he tried to leave. Herrington said he felt threatened because Barclay
put his hand on his right pocket where Herrington knew Barclay kept a knife.
Herrington felt he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Herrington
admitted he hit Barclay three or four times. He denied landing blows while
Barclay was unconscious. Herrington also denied that he followed Barclay to the
door, and instead, claimed that Barclay “turned around and come back in and
swung at me.”
The jury resolved the conflicts in the testimony. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at
13. Only Herrington perceived any threatening words or movement from Barclay
while the men were in the restroom. The jury could believe Barclay and the
eyewitnesses, disbelieve any contradictory testimony from Herrington, rationally
determine that the use of force was not immediately necessary, and find that
Herrington assaulted Barclay. See Denman v. State, 193 S.W.3d 129, 132-34 (Tex.
6
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (holding that jury could reject
defendant’s claim that victim pointed a loaded shotgun at him and defendant and
defense witnesses’ testimony regarding past altercations between defendant and the
victim). The evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We overrule the
appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on May 22, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
7