Page 36 - TPA Journal July August 2017
P. 36
the finding in this case only if the jury could fied that she could not describe the length,
have rationally found that Kimp used the knife size, or shape of the blade, the jury could have
in such a way, or intended to use the knife in inferred some information about the knife from
such a way, that it was capable of causing seri- the video even though the knife was not
ous bodily injury or death. entered into evidence. The video shows that
Kimp was holding the knife by its handle and
In determining whether a weapon is deadly in that just the blade of the knife appears to be a
its manner of use or intended manner of use, couple of inches long. Based on this, the jury
the defendant need not have actually inflicted could have reasonably inferred that the knife
harm on the victim. Instead, we consider was large enough and long enough such that it
words and other threatening actions bythe was capable of causing serious bodily injury or
defendant, including the defendant’s proximity death.6 A jury could have also reasonably
to the victim; the weapon’s ability to inflict inferred from Kimp’s threats, his proximity to
serious bodily injury or death, including the Amelia, and the brandishing of the knife, that
size, shape, and sharpness of the weapon; and the manner in which he used the knife, or
the manner in which the defendant used the intended to use the knife, rendered it capable
weapon. These, however, are just factors used of causing serious bodily injury or death.
to guide a court’s sufficiency analysis; they are
not inexorable commands. The only remaining question is whether Kimp
“used or exhibited” the knife during the crimi-
The court of appeals held that the evidence nal transaction to facilitate commission of the
was insufficient to establish that Kimp used or crime. We conclude that he did. The knife can
intended to use the butter knife in a manner be seen in the video as Kimp pulls it from his
capable of causing death or serious bodily pants as he prepares to rob the two cashiers.
injury. He then used the knife to threaten Amelia and
Aaron while he was stealing money from the
After assaying the record evidence in the light cash registers. From this, a factfinder could
most favorable to Kimp’s conviction, we dis- have rationally concluded that the knife was
agree with the lower court’s interpretation of exhibited and used in commission of the
the record and conclude that there is sufficient offense.
evidence to sustain the deadly-weapon find-
ing. The video shows that, as Kimp walked Because we conclude that there is sufficient
behind the counter, he removed a knife from evidence to sustain the jury’s deadly weapon
his pants. When Kimp was no more than a foot finding in this case, we reverse the judgment of
or two from Amelia, he brandished the knife,5 the court of appeals and remand this cause for
waving it at Amelia and Aaron threatening the court of appeals to address Kimp’s remain-
them to get back. And, although Amelia testi- ing points of error.
32 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
