Marcos Barraza Barrera v. State, 11-15-00252-CR

Appellant Marcos Barraza Barrera was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a knife) and sentenced to 15 years after pleading true to a single enhancement.
Dispute arose after a truck damaged a fence between neighbors David Vazquez (victim) and Gary Sanchez; Appellant (Nancy’s brother) came to inspect and a heated argument ensued at the fence line.
No knife was recovered; responding officers did not search the scene and the case investigator did not obtain a warrant, so the jury relied solely on witness testimony.
Five State witnesses testified that they saw Appellant pull/use a knife and that he threatened to cut/slit David’s throat; Appellant and defense witnesses denied a knife and said he only produced keys.
Witness descriptions conflicted as to whether a knife existed, its appearance (color/holes/stripes), whether Appellant crossed onto David’s property, and what happened to the knife during/after the encounter.
The trial and appellate dispute centered on sufficiency of the evidence to prove Appellant threatened David with imminent bodily injury while using/exhibiting a deadly weapon (knife).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency: Was there legally sufficient evidence that Appellant threatened David with imminent bodily injury while using/exhibiting a deadly weapon?	Testimony contained material contradictions about whether a knife existed and how it was used, so evidence is insufficient to prove the deadly-weapon element beyond reasonable doubt.	Credibility and conflicts are for the jury to resolve; multiple witnesses positively identified a knife and threats, so a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find Appellant used a knife to threaten imminent bodily harm.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (deference to jury credibility and Jackson review framework)
Blain v. State, 647 S.W.2d 293 (knife not a deadly weapon per se; factors for deadly-weapon determination)
McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (intent to use an object in a manner capable of causing death/serious injury required when no death/serious injury occurred)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (definition/meaning of "imminent")
Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268 (useful authority on imminence language)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181 (jury as sole judge of credibility and inference-drawing)
Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (credibility and weighing testimony are jury functions)
Mattias v. State, 731 S.W.2d 936 (jury entitled to accept/reject any witness testimony)