Mark Sorensen v. State
02-16-00015-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 30, 2017Background
- Mark Sorensen was convicted of aggravated assault of a family/household member and sentenced to 50 years after a jury trial in Denton County.
- Victim (Kimberly) was assaulted in a backyard: dragged, placed in a chokehold, kicked, punched, and hit with a tree branch; she suffered bruises, rib pain, shortness of breath and a pneumothorax requiring emergency chest-tube surgery.
- Medical testimony established the collapsed lung was caused by trauma, required emergent treatment, and presented a substantial risk of death without intervention.
- Indictment alleged serious bodily injury and that Sorensen used or exhibited a deadly weapon (hand, foot, or tree branch).
- Sorensen appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence the items were used as deadly weapons, (2) jury charge error (use or exhibit language), and (3) trial court erred by not instructing the jury to disregard parts of the State’s closing argument after sustaining objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sorensen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for deadly-weapon finding | Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, doctor) shows hands/feet/branch were used to cause serious bodily injury and thus were deadly weapons | Evidence does not prove hand/foot/branch used in manner capable of causing serious bodily injury as alleged | Affirmed: rational jury could find feet (and other force) were used in a manner causing serious bodily injury (pneumothorax) and thus met deadly-weapon definition |
| Jury charge language (use or exhibit) | Any error was harmless because evidence and argument focused on use, not mere exhibition, and the charge tied serious bodily injury to striking with the listed items | Charge allowed conviction for exhibiting rather than using a deadly weapon, creating legal error that could harm Sorensen | Affirmed: error did not egregiously harm defendant given evidence and charge language linking use to serious injury |
| Failure to instruct jury to disregard during closing | Sustained objections meant the trial court corrected the argument; no further instruction was requested | Trial court erred by not instructing jury to disregard after sustaining defense objections | Affirmed: defendant forfeited the complaint by not requesting a limiting instruction after the court sustained objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for sufficiency review)
- Blea v. State, 483 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (collapsed lung qualifies as serious bodily injury)
- Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (elements for deadly-weapon finding)
- Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (review of jury-charge error regardless of preservation)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious-harm standard for unpreserved charge error)
- Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (must pursue objection to adverse ruling to preserve prosecutorial-argument error)