Page 53 - TPA Journal May June 2025

“facilitate[d] his commission of the robbery. of convincing Parks that it was in his best inter-
Likewise, the jury in this case could rationally est to abandon the cooler and let Appellant
have concluded that Appellant’s display of the escape with it.
pocketknife—regardless of whether he actually The court of appeals erred to conclude that the
“brandished” it, as Parks asserted at one point— evidence was insufficient to prove the aggravat-
constituted a “use or exhibition” of it “to instill in ing element of Appellant’s conviction for aggra-
the complainant apprehension, reducing the likeli- vated robbery. We reverse the court of appeals’
hood of resistance” to his escaping with the stolen judgment and reinstate the judgment of the trial
merchandise. And once again, the fact that court.
Appellant actually employed the pocketknife to
sever the nylon strap of the soft-side cooler does Glover v. State, Tex. Crim. App., No. PD-0514-
not detract from the rationality of a jury finding 24, Apr. 16, 2025.
that he also “used or exhibited” it for the purpose

May-June 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 49