Page 47 - TPA Journal September October 2022

rationally inferred that Appellant and Bolden evidence when considered in the light most
had “a continuing relationship of a romantic or favorable to the verdict.” When faced with
intimate nature” based on Officer Hernandez’s conflicts in the evidence, a reviewing court
testimony that Bolden identified Appellant as shall presume that the fact finder resolved those
her “boyfriend” and the remaining conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to that
circumstantial evidence. See TEX. FAM. CODE determination.
§ 71.0021(b). By disregarding the evidence
supporting the jury’s verdict, the court of We measure the sufficiency of the evidence
appeals deviated from the appropriate standard against the hypothetically-correct jury
of review that permits the jury to draw charge, defined by the statutory elements as
reasonable inferences from the evidence and modified by the charging instrument. Here,
evaluate the witnesses’ credibility. Affording a Appellant was charged with felony assault
proper level of deference to the jury’s verdict causing bodily injury, which was elevated from
here, we conclude that its finding of a dating a Class A misdemeanor to a third-degree felony
relationship between Appellant and Bolden based on the existence of a “dating
was not irrational or based upon impermissible relationship” with the victim and a prior
speculation. conviction for dating-violence assault. TEX.
PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A). Section
When reviewing the sufficiency of the 22.01(b)(2) provides that a person commits a
evidence to support a conviction, we consider third-degree felony if he: (1) commits bodily
the evidence in the light most favorable to the injury assault against “a person whose
verdict. The verdict will be upheld if any relationship to or association with the
rational trier of fact could have found all the defendant is described by Section 1.0021(b),
essential elements of the offense proven 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code”—i.e., a
beyond a reasonable doubt. “This familiar person with whom the defendant has a “dating
standard gives full play to the responsibility of relationship,” a family member, or a member of
the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the the defendant’s household; and (2) the
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw prosecution proves that the defendant has a
reasonable inferences from basic facts to previous conviction for one of several
ultimate facts.” The jury is the sole judge of the enumerated types of offenses, including
weight and credibility of the evidence. When assaultive offenses, against a person with
considering a claim of evidentiary whom the defendant has a dating relationship,
insufficiency, we must keep in mind that a a family member, or a member of the
juror may choose to believe or disbelieve all, defendant’s household. Id. § 22.01(b)(2)(A).
some, or none of the evidence presented. Appellant does not contest the sufficiency of
Further, while jurors may not base their the evidence showing that he assaulted Bolden
decision on mere speculation or unsupported or that he has a prior conviction for assault of a
inferences, they may draw reasonable person with whom he was in a dating
inferences from the evidence. The evidence is relationship; rather, his sole complaint is that
sufficient to support a conviction, and thus the the evidence was insufficient to show he was in
jury’s verdict is not irrational, if “the inferences a “dating relationship” with Bolden. Thus, we
necessary to establish guilt are reasonable consider only that statutory element going
based upon the cumulative force of all the forward. In defining the offense, Penal Code

Sept./Oct. 2022 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43