Clark, Jack Theotrice Jr.
PD-0439-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 21, 2015Background
- Clark was indicted for assault on a public servant by biting Officer Jennings while he was performing official duties; enhancement for a prior marijuana-delivery conviction applied.
- Trial evidence: three Abilene officers struggled with Clark; Jennings testified Clark bit his fingers, causing skin break and pain; medical and forensic witnesses discussed bite marks but disagreed on fetish/technique of bite.
- Clark claimed he did not bite and that officers’ actions caused his mouth injuries; eyewitness Evette Aguilar did not observe a bite; a medical doctor noted mouth scratch but not conclusive bite marks.
- Trial court convicted Clark of second-degree felony assault with enhancement and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement; the Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Clark timely filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that due process requires proof of the bite as alleged and criticizing the “hypothetically correct jury charge” standard; the court ultimately affirmed the conviction, applying the Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard.
- The opinion affirms the conviction, holding there was legally sufficient evidence that Clark knowingly or intentionally injured Jennings’ finger while the officer acted in the lawful discharge of duties; the bite element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove the bite element | Clark | State | Evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes the standard for legal sufficiency"any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt")
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reaffirms Jackson standard and limits over-credibility review)
- Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (overrules hypothethically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discusses standard for reviewing circumstantial and direct evidence)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (describes Jackson sufficiency framework on appeal)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (historical note on sufficiency review with indictment and charge)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (discusses hypothetically correct jury charge concept in some contexts)