in the Matter of B. S., 07-15-00148-CV

While on patrol in uniform in a marked vehicle, an Austin officer responded to a dispatch about an escaped juvenile in an apartment-complex area.
Officer encountered B.S., who refused to give his name and resisted the officer’s attempt to handcuff and frisk him; two additional officers subdued and handcuffed B.S.
B.S. sustained a bloody nose during the struggle; officers transported him a short distance to a youth center for EMS evaluation for safety reasons.
As EMS concluded its exam and the officer stood nearby, B.S. spat blood and saliva onto the officer’s uniform, face, and arms and made profane, hostile remarks.
The State filed a juvenile petition alleging delinquent conduct: harassment of a public servant (Penal Code § 22.11(a)(2)) and resisting arrest; the trial court found the harassment allegation true and placed B.S. on probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports that the officer was "lawfully discharging an official duty" when B.S. spat on him	State: officer was on duty, in uniform, responding to dispatch and lawfully acting as a peace officer when spat upon	B.S.: officer’s detention/force were unjustified; officer was abusing office, so not lawfully discharging duties	Court: Evidence sufficient — officer acted within capacity as a peace officer and was lawfully discharging duties when spat upon
Whether factual-sufficiency review applies to juvenile adjudication	State: juvenile adjudication requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; use criminal legal-sufficiency standard	B.S.: urges factual insufficiency review asserting failure to prove lawful discharge	Court: Factual-sufficiency standard not applied; Jackson legal-sufficiency review governs for juvenile adjudication

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate review defers to factfinder on credibility and reasonable inferences)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (role of factfinder in weighing evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treatment of legal-sufficiency review)
Johnson v. State, 172 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. App. — Austin) (defining "lawful discharge" as acting within capacity as a peace officer)
Guerra v. State, 771 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. Crim. App.) (officer acting within capacity supports "lawful discharge")
Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App.) (on-duty, in-uniform officer responding to dispatch = acting within capacity)
Hall v. State, 158 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App.) ("lawful discharge" excludes criminal or tortious abuse of office)
Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App.) (clarifies when factual-sufficiency review applies)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.) (discusses standard of proof in juvenile proceedings)
In re A.O., 342 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App. — Amarillo) (refusing separate factual-sufficiency standard for juvenile adjudication)