Page 51 - TPA Journal May June 2025

exhibits a deadly weapon[.]” TEX. PENAL he did not let go of the cooler, Appellant might use
CODE § 29.03(a)(2). “[D]eadly weapon” is it against him in a way that was capable of caus-
defined in the Penal Code as, among other possi- ing serious bodily injury, if not death. And that, we
ble options, “anything that in the manner of its use conclude, is sufficient.
or intended use is capable of causing death or seri- McCain v. State, this Court identified a “two-step
ous bodily injury.” TEX. PENAL CODE § process” that reviewing courts should use to ana-
1.07(a)(17). “Serious bodily injury[,]” in turn, lyze whether a knife (or any other object) has been
“means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk shown to be a deadly weapon. The Court
of death or that causes death, serious permanent explained there that, “the question first arises:
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of Could the object [here, a pocketknife] be a deadly
the function of any bodily member or organ.” weapon under the facts of the case? If that ques-
TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(a)(46). tion is answered in the affirmative, then we would
The question in this case is whether the evidence have occasion to ascertain whether that object was
was sufficient to prove that Appellant used or used or exhibited during the offense.” We shall
exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of inten- conduct these inquiries in turn.
tionally or knowingly threatening or placing Parks In answering this first question, we do not ask
in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. The whether the implement, in the manner of its use or
Court has often said that “[a] knife is not a deadly intended use during the robbery, actually caused
weapon per se.” What the Court has meant by this death or serious bodily injury. Instead, “[t]he
is that implements such as utility knives, straight placement of the word “capable” in [Section
razors, pocketknives, and even butcher knives, 1.07(a)(17)(B)] enables the statute to cover con-
which are not manifestly designed or even, of duct that threatens deadly force, even if the actor
themselves, adapted for the purpose of causing has no intention of actually using deadly force.”
death or serious bodily injury to persons, “do not Indeed, “the defendant need not have actually
qualify as deadly weapons” under Section inflicted harm on the victim.” Instead, in deciding
1.07(a)(17)(A) of the Penal Code. whether the knife in question was capable of caus-
Thus, the court of appeals did not err to examine ing death or serious bodily injury, this Court has
the evidence presented here to determine whether said:
it was legally sufficient to establish that the pock- we consider words and other
etknife in this case constituted a deadly weapon threatening actions by the defen-
under the alternative definition found in Section dant, including the defendant’s
1.07(a)(17)(B): whether, in the manner of its use proximity to the victim; the
or intended use, it was capable of causing death or weapon’s ability to inflict serious
serious bodily injury. But in asking itself whether bodily injury or death, including
the evidence was sufficient to satisfy this alterna- the size, shape, and sharpness of
tive definition, the court of appeals focused almost the weapon; and the manner in
exclusively on evidence relating to the most obvi- which the defendant used the
ous aspect of Appellant’s use of the pocketknife weapon. * * * These, however, are
when he wielded it, namely, to cut the cooler strap. just factors to guide a court’s suffi-
In our view, however, under the circumstances of ciency analysis; they are not inex-
this case, a rational jury could find that cutting the orable commands.
cooler strap was not the only use or intended use
to which Appellant put the knife.1 The jury in this Moreover, in determining whether a knife is a
case could also have rationally concluded that deadly weapon under the facts of a given case, the
Appellant used and/or exhibited the pocketknife Court has said, “a factfinder should consider its
with the additional intent to persuade Parks that, if intended use from the attitude indicated by the

May-June 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 47