Fang v. State, 544 S.W.3d 923

Defendant Bin Fang was charged by information with intentionally/knowingly causing bodily injury to the complainant (alleged dating partner) by striking her with his hand on June 5, 2016.
The State introduced a 911 recording in which a woman identifying as “Lee-Lee” said her husband had “beat” her with his “fist,” gave the correct address, and mentioned a baby.
Police responded, found an Asian man (appellant) at the address who identified the complainant as his wife, and observed the complainant holding a baby with fresh blood at mouth/nose, two forehead scratches, and a bruise on her bicep.
The complainant told officers she was fine and that she had caused her own injuries; officers did not believe her. Appellant asked for a lawyer and did not explain the injuries.
The jury convicted appellant; the court made a statutory family-violence finding and assessed agreed punishment placing appellant on community supervision.

Issue	State's Argument	Fang's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove identity, bodily injury, and mens rea for assault	Evidence (911 call, officers’ observations, appellant’s presence/identification) supports identity, bodily injury (scratches/bruise/blood), and knowing conduct causing injury	Evidence insufficient: no proof appellant struck complainant with his hand, no proof of bodily injury, and no proof of a dating relationship	Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find identity, bodily injury, and knowing causation beyond a reasonable doubt; alleged dating-relationship allegation was immaterial variance for misdemeanor assault charge
Admissibility under the Confrontation Clause of complainant’s out-of-court statements to police	Statements admissible / trial-level hearsay ruling (State introduced 911/transcript and officers’ testimony)	Admission violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights	Overruled: defendant objected only on hearsay grounds at trial, not on Confrontation Clause grounds, so Confrontation Clause complaint was not preserved for appeal

Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to jurors on credibility)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (variance/fatal variance doctrine; immaterial variances disregarded)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (any physical pain, however minor, suffices for "bodily injury")
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (State not required to prove pleaded manner-and-means when variance is immaterial)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (failure to object on constitutional grounds at trial forfeits appellate review of such claims)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of hypothetically correct jury charge)
Shah v. State, 403 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (cuts/bruises sufficient to show bodily injury)