Babcock v. State, 501 S.W.3d 651

Appellant Silas Mark Babcock was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; he pleaded true to two enhancement allegations and received a 70-year sentence after the trial court assessed punishment.
Indictment charged Babcock with intentionally/knowingly threatening Theodore Flores with imminent bodily injury and using/exhibiting a stick/branch/club/tree limb as a deadly weapon.
Facts: Flores removed Appellant’s nephew from his driveway, told vehicle occupants to leave, and returned to find Appellant and others confronting him.
Flores testified Babcock shouted threats ("going to beat [Flores’s] a-", "going to F [Flores] up"), removed his shirt, acted erratically, and sprinted toward Flores from ~15–20 feet while holding a ~2–3 foot branch cocked like a bat.
Flores fired a warning shot into the ground; he stated he expected Babcock would hit and possibly kill him with the branch. The branch itself was not introduced at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove assault by threat (intent/ imminence)	Flores argued Babcock verbally and physically threatened imminent bodily injury; words + conduct show intent	Babcock argued evidence insufficient to prove intentional/knowing threat or imminence	Court held evidence was sufficient; jury could infer intent and imminence from words, conduct, and approach
Whether the branch was a "deadly weapon" (capable by use or intended use)	State argued branch, size, manner of use, proximity, and threats showed intended use capable of causing serious injury/death	Babcock argued branch was not proven to be a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt (branch not admitted)	Court held evidence sufficient; branch could be used in a manner capable of causing serious injury/death and jury could find intended use

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes constitutional sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
Bailey v. State, 38 S.W.3d 157 (deadly-weapon inquiry focuses on actor's intent to use object so as to cause serious injury or death)
McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (same principle on deadly-weapon intent)
Tisdale v. State, 686 S.W.2d 110 (proximity between defendant, weapon, and victim relevant to deadly-weapon determination)
Blain v. State, 647 S.W.2d 293 (size/shape and manner of use relevant to deadly-weapon finding)
Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (defines “imminent” as "near at hand")
McGowan v. State, 664 S.W.2d 355 (threat may be communicated by conduct as well as words)