Antonious Desmond Brinson v. State, 03-14-00702-CR

On Oct. 20, 2013, Antonious Desmond Brinson was indicted for assault causing bodily injury to his partner, Javonda Johnson, by hitting/striking her with his hands and a metal baseball bat; the indictment also alleged a prior family-violence assault conviction for enhancement.
At trial the jury convicted Brinson of assault-family-violence with a prior, and sentenced him to 13 years' confinement and a $1,000 fine.
Key factual dispute: Johnson and two juvenile witnesses testified that Johnson approached Brinson while angry and intoxicated, picked up a metal baseball bat, swung and missed, and then both fell to the ground struggling for control of the bat; Johnson sustained a swelling to her head during the scuffle.
Witness statements and trial testimony conflicted: 9-1-1 call and Johnson’s initial statement to police described Brinson as the assailant and referenced being ‘‘assaulted by a bat,’’ but at trial Johnson and the children gave versions indicating Johnson armed herself and the head injury occurred during a struggle—possibly accidentally.
Officer observed Johnson’s forehead swelling and took statements; Johnson initially declined to press charges and signed a release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brinson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Brinson intentionally/knowingly/recklessly caused bodily injury by striking Johnson with fists or a metal bat	The State argued the evidence supports conviction: Johnson had a swelling to her head after the encounter and witnesses identified Brinson as the assailant in initial statements.	Brinson argued evidence was legally insufficient because testimony shows Johnson armed herself, swung the bat first, the injury occurred during a struggle and may have been accidental, and witnesses’ trial testimony was inconsistent with their earlier statements.	Trial: jury convicted Brinson. Appellate brief seeks reversal for insufficiency. No appellate decision is included in this brief.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence — whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility; appellate sufficiency review defers to rational inferences)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discusses application of Jackson standard)
Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge to identify essential elements)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standards for hypothetically correct jury charge)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate review may not reweigh evidence; jury resolves conflicts)
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discusses circumstances where evidence is insufficient under Jackson)
Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (bodily injury definition can encompass relatively minor physical harm)
Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (evidence of physical injury may be slight but still sufficient)