Darwin Fisher v. State, 14-17-00345-CR

Appellant Darwin Fisher, an inmate confined to a private cell at a correctional facility, was charged with harassment for throwing a cup containing a mixture of his urine and feces through the tray slot, which struck a nurse in the hair, face, and clothing.
The nurse had approached the cell to exchange medical supplies (Fisher required a catheter); Fisher handed his old supplies through the tray slot and then tossed the mixture without warning while she was bending down.
Fisher made no verbal threats before the act and had no known serious mental disorders; the State argued the act stemmed from anger at perceived delay in service.
Fisher was convicted; on appeal he contested (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to intent and (2) reversible error from being placed in shackles during voir dire.
The trial court had ordered Fisher shackled after he behaved disruptively before voir dire—speaking over the judge, making threats, exposing himself, and being aggressive toward staff; the judge concealed the shackles from the venire and removed them once Fisher demonstrated peaceful behavior.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and rejected both appellate challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fisher)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence — intent element	Evidence (circumstances of the throw, private cell with toilet, lack of warning) supports that Fisher intended to assault/harass/alarm the nurse	At most reckless conduct; he was trying merely to dispose of waste into the nurse’s trash bag	Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt
Use of shackles during voir dire	Shackling was justified by Fisher’s disruptive, aggressive, and sexually indecent conduct toward court and staff; court minimized juror exposure	Shackles were inherently prejudicial and should be last resort; their use violated defendant’s rights	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; precautions taken to avoid juror exposure and removal occurred once behavior ceased

Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
Bell v. State, 415 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (shackles are inherently prejudicial and should be last resort; court must state reasons)
Yglesias v. State, 252 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (shackling may be appropriate when defendant poses a risk)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (recognizes interests justifying restraints: security, escape prevention, decorum)
Powell v. State, 304 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (defendant misbehavior can support use of shackles)
Molina v. State, 971 S.W.2d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (trial court did not abuse discretion in shackling after outbursts)