Page 34 - TPA Journal September- October 2017
P. 34
a substantial risk of death or that causes death, waving it at Amelia and Aaron threatening
serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted them to get back. And, although Amelia
loss or impairment of the function of any testified that she could not describe the length,
bodily member or organ.” Because not all size, or shape of the blade, the jury could have
knives are manifestly designed, made, or inferred some information about the knife from
adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious the video even though the knife was not
bodily injury or death, the evidence is entered into evidence. The video shows that
sufficient 4 to support the finding in this case Kimp was holding the knife by its handle and
only if the jury could have rationally found that that just the blade of the knife appears to be a
Kimp used the knife in such a way, or intended couple of inches long. Based on this, the jury
to use the knife in such a way, that it was could have reasonably inferred that the knife
capable of causing serious bodily injury or was large enough and long enough such that it
death. was capable of causing serious bodily injury or
death.6 A jury could have also reasonably
In determining whether a weapon is deadly in inferred from Kimp’s threats, his proximity to
its manner of use or intended manner of use, Amelia, and the brandishing of the knife, that
the defendant need not have actually inflicted the manner in which he used the knife, or
harm on the victim. Instead, we consider intended to use the knife, rendered it capable
words and other threatening actions bythe of causing serious bodily injury or death.
defendant, including the defendant’s proximity
to the victim; the weapon’s ability to inflict The only remaining question is whether Kimp
serious bodily injury or death, including the “used or exhibited” the knife during the
size, shape, and sharpness of the weapon; and criminal transaction to facilitate commission of
the manner in which the defendant used the the crime. We conclude that he did. The knife
weapon. These, however, are just factors used can be seen in the video as Kimp pulls it from
to guide a court’s sufficiency analysis; they are his pants as he prepares to rob the two cashiers.
not inexorable commands. He then used the knife to threaten Amelia and
Aaron while he was stealing money from the
The court of appeals held that the evidence cash registers. From this, a factfinder could
was insufficient to establish that Kimp used or have rationally concluded that the knife was
intended to use the butter knife in a manner exhibited and used in commission of the
capable of causing death or serious bodily offense.
injury.
Because we conclude that there is sufficient
After assaying the record evidence in the light evidence to sustain the jury’s deadly weapon
most favorable to Kimp’s conviction, we finding in this case, we reverse the judgment of
disagree with the lower court’s interpretation of the court of appeals and remand this cause for
the record and conclude that there is sufficient the court of appeals to address Kimp’s
evidence to sustain the deadly-weapon remaining points of error.
finding. The video shows that, as Kimp walked
behind the counter, he removed a knife from Kimp v. State, No. PD-0699-16, Texas Court of
his pants. When Kimp was no more than a foot Criminal Appeals, Feb. 15, 2017.
or two from Amelia, he brandished the knife,5
28 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
