Derek Thomas Baldit v. State
522 S.W.3d 753
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Derek Thomas Baldit was convicted by a jury of Class A misdemeanor assault on a family member for allegedly pushing, grabbing, and dragging his fiancée, Laurita Elvir, during a January 2015 altercation in their home; punishment was 180 days’ confinement per plea agreement.
- Elvir testified appellant pushed her into a closet door, put his hand on her neck, and later grabbed her cell phone; during a struggle he allegedly dragged her through rooms, causing carpet burns, bruises, a broken toenail, and arm pain.
- Their young daughter, D.G. (five at the time of the incident, six at trial), testified as an eyewitness to the struggle and corroborated Elvir’s account.
- Deputy Gonzales observed Elvir crying, with blood and apparent recent injuries; appellant claimed Elvir had grabbed him and caused his own marks.
- Appellant raised two appellate issues: (1) insufficiency of evidence that he acted intentionally or knowingly (arguing at most recklessness), and (2) trial court error in failing to make a competency finding for the child witness, D.G.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baldit) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of mental state for assault by bodily injury | Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, conduct of dragging, size disparity, yelling/requests to stop) permits inference appellant acted knowingly (aware conduct was reasonably certain to cause injury) | At best evidence shows recklessness, not the intentional/knowing mental state charged | Affirmed — substantial evidence permitted a jury to infer appellant acted knowingly; conviction upheld |
| Competency of child witness (D.G.) | D.G.’s on-record answers showed she could observe, recollect, narrate events, and distinguish truth from lies; any suggestion of pretrial coaching goes to credibility, not competency | Trial court erred by not making a competency finding and D.G.’s young age and prior discussions with mother showed incompetency/improper influence | Affirmed — record does not show facial incompetency; D.G. demonstrated capacity to observe, recollect, narrate, and understand truth-telling; issue not preserved but reviewed and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (intent and knowledge may be inferred from acts, words, and conduct)
- Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (culpable mental state may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including nature of wounds and conduct)
- Gilley v. State, 418 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (trial court’s role and procedure for determining competency of child witness)
- Torres v. State, 424 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (factors for child-witness competency: observation, recollection, narration, and duty to tell truth)