Clinton A. Grubb v. State, 11-13-00288-CR

Around 3:00 a.m. an unknown intruder entered Jackie Pancake’s home, shone a flashlight in his eyes, threatened to rob and kill him, and beat him with a makeshift club (a table leg with a metal bolt and tied to the attacker’s arm).
Pancake sustained cuts and bruises, required some self-treatment, and testified the beating “probably” hurt; photographs of his injuries were admitted at trial.
Police recovered the table leg and a bag containing a baseball cap, towel, and windbreaker on Pancake’s property; DNA testing matched Grubb to the table leg, jacket, and cap.
Darrell Sasser, who lived with Grubb, testified that before the offense Grubb told him he might rob Pancake; Sasser also said his wife called to tell him that Jackie had been in trouble and he told her it might have been Grubb.
Grubb was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit or committing aggravated assault and sentenced to 30 years’ confinement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove bodily injury for aggravated assault element of burglary	State: Photographs, testimony about cuts/bruises, and nature of weapon support inference of physical pain (bodily injury).	Grubb: Victim testified injuries only “probably” hurt, so no proof of physical pain => insufficient to support aggravated assault.	Court: Evidence (victim’s testimony, photos, weapon) reasonably supports inference of bodily injury; sufficiency upheld.
Admission of Sasser’s out-of-court statements (hearsay)	State: Statements were not offered for their truth but to explain how Sasser became connected to the investigation and how Grubb became a suspect.	Grubb: Sasser’s testimony repeating his wife’s statements and his reply was hearsay offered for truth in violation of Rule 801.	Court: Admission was within zone of reasonable disagreement (non-abuse of discretion); even if error, it was harmless given cumulative and strong other evidence.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency review standard under due process)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Texas Crim. App.) (application of Jackson sufficiency review)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Texas Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence and inferences)
Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of bodily injury)
Bolton v. State, 619 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (injury descriptions like cuts can suffice for bodily injury)
Sanchez v. State, 460 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.) (photographs of injuries can establish bodily injury)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App.) (out-of-court statements used to explain how defendant became a suspect are not hearsay)
Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors for harmless-error analysis under Rule 44.2(b))
Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. Crim. App.) (cumulative evidence can render erroneous admission harmless)
Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of substantial right and harm analysis)