Page 42 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

the transport to the emergency room. evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s
finding that Melendez suffered serious bodily
The court of appeals also concluded that Dr. injury. The court of appeals failed to view the
Smith’s testimony was insufficient to evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
show that Melendez suffered serious bodily injury. and impermissibly substituted its own judgment for
Although he testified “that he thought her wounds that of the factfinder. Applying the appropriate
constituted serious bodily injury, . . . he was not level of deference and considering the cumulative
asked about and expressed no opinion regarding force of the evidence, we find that the jury could
the statutory criteria for serious bodily injury.” The have rationally inferred that Melendez’s gunshot
court continued, explaining that Dr. Smith “was not wounds posed a substantial risk of death, such that
asked and did not indicate what would or could the element of serious bodily injury was satisfied.
have happened with [C]omplainant’s wounds had
she not received medical care.” In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a conviction, we consider the
Finally, the court observed that the treatment evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
Melendez received “was relatively brief and and determine whether, based on the evidence and
nonintrusive,” and she was released from the reasonable inferences therefrom, a rational juror
hospital after three hours and twenty minutes. could have found the essential elements of the
Ultimately, the court of appeals reversed and crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “This familiar
remanded the case to the trial court with standard gives full play to the responsibility of the
instructions to reform the conviction to second- trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the
degree aggravated assault and hold a new testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
punishment hearing. reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate
facts.” A proper review of evidentiary sufficiency
Justice Poissant dissented. In her view, the
evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to considers the cumulative force of the evidence.
have found that Melendez was exposed to a When considering a claim of evidentiary
substantial risk of death as a result of the gunshot insufficiency, a reviewing court does not sit as the
wounds, thereby establishing the element of thirteenth juror and may not substitute its judgment
serious bodily injury. (noting that Melendez for that of the factfinder by reevaluating the weight
“suffered two gunshot wounds near vital organs, and credibility of the evidence. The jury acts as the
bled profusely, lost consciousness, required sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and
emergency room treatment, has bullet fragments in may choose to believe all, some, or none of the
her right thigh, and has scars from the bullet testimony presented. “Furthermore, the trier of fact
wounds. The testimony of the emergency room may use common sense and apply common
physician who treated Complainant established knowledge, observation, and experience gained in
both that the Complainant suffered serious bodily ordinary affairs when drawing inferences from the
injury and that her injuries could have caused evidence.” If the record supports conflicting
Complainant’s death.”) inferences, the reviewing court must “presume that
the factfinder resolved the conflicts in favor of the
We granted the State’s petition for discretionary prosecution” and defer to the jury’s factual
review to answer the following
= question: “Whether the Fourteenth Court of determinations. In other words, when there are
two reasonable interpretations of the evidence, the
Appeals improperly acted as a thirteenth juror’ by
re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly
erroneous.
evidence showing that the [C]omplainant’s gunshot
wounds constituted serious bodily injury?” We measure the sufficiency of the evidence against
the hypothetically correct jury charge. The
We reject the court of appeals’ conclusion that the
“hypothetically correct jury charge accurately sets

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