Jorge Isaac Sanchez-Marban v. State
04-15-00156-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 1, 2015Background
- Defendant Jorge Isaac Sanchez-Marban was charged by information with misdemeanor assault – bodily injury for allegedly striking neighbor Diann Christian with a tree branch; he waived a jury, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted by the trial court.
- Incident facts: Christian testified she was working on her van near the fence when Sanchez-Marban allegedly struck the fence with a branch and then hit her in the head and chest; she lost consciousness, was hospitalized, and later sustained fractured ribs and other pain.
- Christian and her daughter Shanna Lozano were neighbors; Lozano recorded multiple videos of Sanchez-Marban (State’s Exhibit 5) showing prior antagonistic interactions and made contemporaneous audio comments relevant to credibility.
- Sanchez-Marban testified, denied the assault, said he remained on his property, and offered alternate explanations (e.g., Christian’s preexisting conditions, prior incidents where neighbors provoked him, and alleged pepper-spray/gun incidents involving the neighbors).
- Trial court sentenced Sanchez-Marban to 11 months’ jail (probated), a $100 fine, restitution, and costs; the public defender filed this appellate brief arguing legal insufficiency of the evidence and seeking reversal with an acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sanchez-Marban) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence to support assault conviction | Testimony and cumulative evidence support that Sanchez-Marban intentionally/knowingly caused bodily injury by striking Christian with a branch | Eyewitness testimony is unreliable/inconsistent; videos and statements show motive to lie and alternate explanations; physical contact not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Trial court convicted; appellant argues evidence legally insufficient and asks appellate court to reverse and render acquittal (appeal pending) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (appellate sufficiency review and remedy of acquittal for legally insufficient evidence)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (proper framing of hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency analysis)
- Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470 (appellate court’s role as due-process backstop to ensure rationality of factfinder)
- Wilson v. State, 448 S.W.3d 418 (reiterates reviewing court assesses evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (collective weight of incriminating circumstances may support conviction)