Page 40 - TPA Journal July August 2022

the defense.” Bujnoch testified that there were observed Nutt commit an offense.
disparities between what occurred on the recording
and what was listed in the offense report, including The court of appeals affirmed all three convictions.
not listing any witnesses or mentioning that It held that a rational jury could have concluded
Shannon pointed her taser at Nutt, which Bujnoch beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant (1)
said was a show of force that was required to be “made or used a governmental record knowing that
disclosed. the report was false” and (2) “while acting under
color of his office as a public servant, . . . subjected
Bujnoch said that the omissions and Nutt to an arrest that he knew was unlawful and
misrepresentations were so great that they qualified intentionally subjected Nutt to mistreatment
as tampering with a governmental record. She said knowing that his actions were unlawful by
that “if all the elements of the incident had been criminally trespassing in Nutt’s home.”
included in the report[,] it would have been obvious
that the arrest was illegal.” Further, by signing the We granted review to determine whether the
offense report, Appellant indicated that he read the circumstances were sufficient to prove that
contents, endorsed the description of the events on Appellant tampered with a governmental record
the night in question, and used the report to and committed official oppression.
document the event. The jury found Appellant
guilty of both counts of official oppression as well When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the
as the misdemeanor offense of tampering with a evidence, an appellate court must view the
governmental record. In each case, the judge evidence in the light most favorable to the
sentenced Appellant to six months in jail, probated prosecution and ask whether any rational trier of
for one year, all to run concurrently. fact could have found each element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court
Court of Appeals must give deference to “the responsibility of the
trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the
On appeal, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
the evidence supporting his conviction for reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate
tampering with a governmental record and two facts.” Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence
convictions for official oppression. As for the are equally probative, and either one alone can be
tampering conviction, Appellant asserted that the sufficient to establish guilt. Juries are permitted to
evidence was insufficient because the State did not draw reasonable inferences from the evidence
provide any evidence regarding “what is required presented at trial “as long as each inference is
to be [included] in an offense report.” He also supported by the evidence presented at trial.”
argued that there was no statute requiring that a
police officer fill out an offense report or that Analysis
certain information be included on the report. As I. TAMPERING WITH A GOVERNMENTAL
for the official oppression convictions, Appellant RECORD
argued that: (1) the evidence did not establish that Appellant was charged with tampering with a
he knew that the arrest and entry were unlawful; governmental record in violation of Texas Penal
(2) the evidence established that his otherwise Code section 37.10(a)(5), which states that “A
impermissible conduct was justified by the person commits an offense if he makes, presents, or
presence of exigent circumstances; and (3) the uses a governmental record with knowledge of its
entry and arrest were authorized because he falsity.”4 The indictment alleged that Appellant:

36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal