Esau Poree v. State
03-16-00561-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- On August 12, 2015, outside a downtown Austin homeless shelter, appellant Esau Poree (identified in trial as “NO”) cut a victim with a box-cutter during an altercation.
- Victim and an eyewitness testified that Poree swung a razor/blue box-cutter, stood over the seated victim, the victim blocked with his arm and suffered a laceration requiring stitches, then tried to flee while Poree pursued and continued to jab.
- Police bodycam and surveillance video captured the assault; officers chased and Tasered Poree.
- Evidence admitted included the box-cutter, photos of the injury, medical records, surveillance and body-camera videos, and officer testimony describing a ‘‘fairly long incision’’ circling the base of the victim’s thumb.
- Poree was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; sentence enhanced under habitual-offender provision to 45 years. He appealed solely challenging legal sufficiency of the deadly-weapon finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Poree) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence is legally sufficient to support finding that the box-cutter was a "deadly weapon" under Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(17)(B) | The jury could infer from the weapon, videos, positioning, threats, and the victim’s laceration that Poree used/intended the box-cutter in a way capable of causing death or serious bodily injury | The blade was small (~3/4–1 in), injury was limited (stitches, short hospital stay), no witness or expert testified the knife could cause death/serious injury; thus evidence insufficient | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to support deadly-weapon finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (apply Jackson standard on review)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury fact findings and inferences)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury entitled to weigh conflicts and draw inferences)
- Johnson v. State, 509 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors for determining if knife is deadly by manner/intended use)
- McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App.) (an object is a deadly weapon if intended use would make it capable of causing death/serious bodily injury)
- Tucker v. State, 274 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. Crim. App.) (expert testimony not required; lay or injury evidence may suffice)
- Garrett v. State, 298 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App.) (example where similar small-blade evidence was found insufficient)
- Davidson v. State, 602 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App.) (expert testimony useful but not required to characterize a weapon)