Clark v. State
573 S.W.3d 367
Tex. App.2019Background
- Clark pled guilty to evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle (third-degree felony, enhanced by prior felonies) but contested the allegation he used the vehicle as a deadly weapon; deadly-weapon and punishment were tried to the court.
- Dash-cam and officer testimony: deputy spotlighted Clark’s car; Clark reversed, then accelerated, ran stop signs, traveled ~1 mile at high speed (officer paced ~60 mph in a 30 zone) and crashed into a ditch; dash-cam shows no other vehicles on the road.
- The officer testified Clark’s car briefly exited the roadway toward his patrol vehicle before the officer turned on overhead lights; officer did not attempt to detain Clark until he activated overhead lights.
- Video shows Clark passed in front of the patrol car about one second after overhead lights were activated, traveling in the roadway; the officer was some distance behind during the subsequent short pursuit.
- Clark admitted meth use and fleeing because he was scared; he denied intending to strike or threaten the officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports deadly-weapon finding for use of vehicle during evading arrest | State: Clark drove in a manner capable of causing death/serious injury (speeding, running stop signs, nearly ran over deputy) and thus used vehicle as deadly weapon | Clark: No person was actually endangered during the period he was evading arrest after lights were activated; earlier conduct toward deputy occurred before an attempt to detain him | Court: Insufficient evidence to support deadly-weapon finding for the offense period after officer activated overhead lights; strike deadly-weapon finding and affirm as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard is the sole sufficiency standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements for deadly-weapon finding and need for actual danger)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (actual endangerment required; reviewing court must ensure rationality of factfinder)
- Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (relevant time period for deadly-weapon use tied to the offense charged)
- Foley v. State, 327 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (rejection of deadly-weapon finding where no evidence others were in immediate vicinity)