Cody A. Carpenter v. the State of Texas, 03-19-00556-CR

On Nov. 20, 2018, Nicholas Crawley, his fiancée Cassidy Thurman, and their infant were driving on Highway 67 when a darker four‑door pickup passed and then slowed; the parties’ vehicles repeatedly attempted to pass each other in dark conditions.
As Crawley and Thurman attempted to pass, the pickup’s driver (appellant Cody A. Carpenter) produced a .40‑caliber Glock and fired two to three shots; victims testified shots were fired toward or in the direction of their Jeep and that they feared for their safety.
Deputies stopped the pickup, recovered the Glock (loaded with rounds), and appellant admitted to firing shots; he gave written statements saying he fired to make the Jeep back off or leave, calling them “warning” or to “scare” them.
At a bench trial (appellant waived jury), appellant testified he fired two shots into the air as warning shots and not at the Jeep; his testimony conflicted with Crawley’s and Thurman’s accounts about direction and angle of the shots.
The trial court convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (threatening with imminent bodily injury while exhibiting/using a deadly weapon) and sentenced him to concurrent 3‑year TDCJ terms.
On appeal, appellant’s sole issue challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he intentionally or knowingly threatened the victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Carpenter intentionally/knowingly threatened victims with imminent bodily injury (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon)	State: victims’ testimony that shots were aimed toward them, their expressed fear, appellant’s admissions and written statements that he fired to scare or make them back off permit a reasonable inference of intent and a threat	Carpenter: shots were warning shots fired into the air, not directed at victims; at most reckless conduct, not intentional/knowing threat	Affirmed: evidence (victims’ testimony, recovered gun, appellant’s admissions) was sufficient for a rational factfinder to infer intent and that a threat occurred; conviction upheld

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review—State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016) (appellate sufficiency review considers all evidence and does not reweigh credibility)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish guilt)
Olivas v. State, 203 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (threat need not be verbal; courts consider whether conduct would create reasonable apprehension of imminent harm)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (definition of "imminent")
Boston v. State, 373 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (display or pointing of a gun can constitute threatening conduct)
Robinson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (display of a deadly weapon can itself constitute a threat of imminent harm)
Schmidt v. State, 232 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (conviction for threat requires some evidence that a threat was made)