Bobby Gene Martin v. State, 09-15-00087-CR

Bobby Gene Martin was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and retaliation; he pleaded true to habitual-offender allegations and received life sentences.
Police and a wrecker driver responded to reports of a black pickup swerving and running into a ditch; callers described an intoxicated male near the vehicle and no other occupants were observed.
The wrecker driver identified Martin near the road, said Martin asked to be pulled out before police arrived, and saw Martin walk toward the woods. A deputy later found Martin hiding in chest-deep water with the truck keys on his belt.
Field sobriety tests showed multiple signs of intoxication; a blood sample taken about three hours after arrival showed a BAC of ~0.217.
Martin made statements at the scene (e.g., “I’m a better driver than that”) and to the wrecker driver about not being able to afford another DWI; he later threatened Deputy Jordan and his family while in custody.
The jury convicted Martin on both counts; on appeal he challenged sufficiency of the evidence for both DWI and retaliation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Martin drove the truck while intoxicated	Martin: callers did not identify him as the driver; no witness saw him driving	State: circumstantial evidence (presence at scene, keys on his person, statements, flight, high BAC) supports inference he drove	Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard
Temporal link between intoxication and driving (element for DWI)	Martin: BAC taken hours later, no direct proof tying intoxication to driving time	State: high BAC at scene and flight/supporting facts furnish reasonable inference of recent intoxication while driving	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence adequate to connect intoxication to driving
Sufficiency for retaliation conviction (threats against officer)	Martin: threats were drunken ramblings lacking intent/ability to carry out	State: statute requires only that threats be made knowingly/intentionally in retaliation for public service; intent to carry out not required	Affirmed — threats, context, and repetition support retaliation conviction
Weight/credibility of witness statements and recordings	Martin: statements could be ambiguous or explainable as concern about being blamed	State: jury entitled to weigh credibility and infer guilt from combined evidence (recordings, testimony, conduct)	Affirmed — jury reasonably resolved conflicting inferences in favor of verdict

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson is sole standard for sufficiency review)
Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (application of Jackson standard)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)
Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (temporal link requirement for DWI and role of high BAC/flight as circumstantial evidence)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider all evidence in sufficiency review; flight as inference of guilt)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient)
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (uphold verdict unless rational factfinder must have had reasonable doubt)
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jury as sole judge of credibility)
Lebleu v. State, 192 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (retaliation does not require intent to carry out threat)
Meyer v. State, 366 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (threats evaluated by language and context)
In re B.P.H., 83 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (retaliation statute does not require imminence or actual intent to execute threat)