Kellum, Demetrius, PD-0613-15

Defendant Demetrius Kellum was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and sentenced to life imprisonment; timely appeal filed.
Incident: after drinking, victim Windell Williams became aggressive at a club; Kellum tried to calm him; Williams was ejected and a fight later broke out at a stop sign and resumed at Kellum’s home.
All eyewitnesses (two female companions, the victim, and Kellum) described the encounter as mutual combat; witnesses testified Williams was intoxicated and kept trying to continue the fight.
Evidence showed Williams suffered more and worse injuries while Kellum had little injury; the State argued Kellum used a knife and escalated the violence.
Kellum asserted statutory self-defense under Tex. Pen. Code §§ 9.31–9.32; appellate brief argues the evidence is legally insufficient to disprove self-defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's implied rejection of self-defense	The State argued Kellum’s greater force and use of a knife (and disparity in injuries) support rejecting self-defense	Kellum argued the record shows he acted to repel Williams’s aggression; witnesses described Williams as primary aggressor or mutual combatant and Kellum tried to withdraw	Appellate brief contends the evidence is legally insufficient and seeks reversal and rendition of acquittal (court ruling pending in brief)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence; defer to jury resolution of conflicts)
Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standard for reviewing jury rejection of defensive issues)
Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (guilty verdict implies finding against defensive issues)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to the jury’s ability to weigh evidence and draw inferences)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of a hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (consider entire record in assessing sufficiency on defensive issues)
Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard and approach to legal sufficiency review)
Roberts v. State, 273 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (due process requires prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt every element necessary to conviction)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (appellate court’s role in safeguarding due process in sufficiency review)
Allen v. State, 249 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (illustration of appellate review protecting due process)