Page 46 - TPA Journal July August 2022

victim said that Appellant told her, constitute a court must “consider the combined and cumulative
verbal threat?” We ordered the parties to brief this force of all admitted evidence and reasonable
issue, and they have done so. inferences therefrom.” In concluding that it could
not discern a threat from the victim’s statement that
The State argues that the statement constituted a Appellant “told me I need to hit,” the court of
verbal threat in the context in which it was made— appeals failed to adhere to these principles. A
Grayson being hit by a board, Appellant uttering rational jury could have concluded that Appellant
the statement, and Appellant continuing to hit the verbally conveyed to Grayson that he would
victim with the board. Appellant contends that the continue hitting her with the board because he
words “I need to hit” might or might not constitute needed to hit her. Appellant’s position is that the
a threat, depending on the context in which the utterance “I need to hit” is ambiguous both in the
words are uttered. The short answer, he says, is, “It abstract and in the context of his own case. Viewing
depends.” evidence in the “the light most favorable to the
prosecution” ordinarily means resolving any
Appellant contends that the words do not constitute ambiguities in the evidence in the prosecution’s
a threat in his case because they were uttered after favor. The evidence is sufficient if “any” rational
the assault occurred. He further contends that the trier of fact could have so concluded. Even
State offered no nexus to connect the utterance to a assuming Appellant is correct that Grayson’s
verbal assault. He further argues that Grayson’s rendition of Appellant’s statement could be
written statement relating what he said is construed as an invitation to Grayson to fight back,
ambiguous and that she could have been saying that a rational jury did not have to construe it that way.
Appellant was telling her to hit him back. He also A rational jury could have, instead, viewed the
contends that, because (according to Grayson’s statement as an expression of the Appellant’s “need
testimony) he had already commenced hitting her to hit.” Further, we disagree with Appellant’s
with the board, she was already in fear of bodily characterization of the utterance as occurring after
injury when he said, “I need to hit.” the physical assault. The phrase, “I need to hit”
Appellant cites several cases in which the phrase occurred during Appellant’s physical assault on
“I need to hit” was included in a defendant’s Grayson. Appellant beat her, told her “I need to
statement as examples of the phrase being a verbal hit,” and beat her some more. The nexus between
threat, but he contends that the facts of those cases the utterance and the physical assault is obvious,
are distinguishable from the facts of his case and a rational jury could have concluded that the
because the words were uttered before any assault. utterance was a threat to continue physically
Finally, he argues that threats are “forward assaulting Grayson—a threat that Appellant carried
looking” statements about what the actor intends to out. And contrary to Appellant’s suggestion, the
do and that the utterance in his case was a fact that Grayson was already in fear of serious
“backward looking” statement about why he bodily injury did not preclude her from being
physically attacked Grayson. threatened again. And even if the statement could
be construed as a backward-looking explanation for
We agree with the State that a rational trier of fact whythe defendant had alreadyhit Grayson, it could
could have found, under the evidence in this case, also be seen as a forward-looking statement of
that the statement “I need to hit” was a verbal Appellant’s intent to continue to hit her—an intent
threat. In a sufficiencyreview, the reviewing court that he carried out. We conclude that a rational jury
must consider all of the evidence in “the light most could have concluded that the statement “I need to
favorable to the prosecution.” And the reviewing hit” constituted a verbal threat by Appellant to

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