Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. v. State
461 S.W.3d 244
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. was convicted by the trial court of assault on a public servant for allegedly biting Officer Christopher Jennings during a September 13, 2009, struggle; punishment was 10 years after Appellant pleaded true to a prior-felony enhancement.
- Officers Wilson and Jennings (in uniform, marked cars) responded to a disturbance; they repeatedly asked Appellant to keep his hands out of his pockets for safety.
- A physical struggle ensued when officers tried to get Appellant’s hands out; officers used soft and hard hands, pepper spray, punches, and an ASP; a third officer assisted and Appellant was subdued.
- Officer Jennings testified Appellant lunged and bit his index and middle fingers, breaking the skin on the index finger and causing severe pain; photos and ER physician testimony corroborated wounds.
- Appellant denied intentionally biting anyone, claimed officers put fingers in his mouth during restraint, and presented a forensic odontologist who could not confirm the wounds were bite marks.
- The court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Appellant caused bodily injury by biting Officer Jennings | State: Photographs, ER doctor, and Officer Jennings’ testimony show bite wounds and pain—sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find intentional/knowing bodily injury | Clark: Defense witnesses dispute bite causation; Appellant testified contact was incidental and not an intentional bite | Affirmed: Evidence (including photos, physician, and officer testimony) was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude Appellant intentionally/knowingly caused bodily injury |
| Whether Officer Jennings was acting in lawful discharge of duty when injured | State: Officers were in uniform, in marked cars, responding to a disturbance and attempting a lawful investigative detention—so actions were within lawful duty | Clark: Argues officers failed to follow policy and abused authority, undermining lawful-duty element | Affirmed: Court found officers were acting lawfully based on uniform/marked cars, disturbance response, and circumstances justifying detention and force |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
- Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (definition of bodily injury includes more than offensive touching)
- Hall v. State, 158 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (lawful discharge of duty excludes criminal or tortious abuse of office)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can suffice to prove guilt)