Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840

Patrick Marshall was tried for third-degree felony family assault for placing a pillow over his wife Shawne’s face and impeding her normal breathing.
The jury was instructed to convict if Marshall intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeded Shawne’s normal breathing by blocking her nose or mouth with a pillow; the application paragraph omitted the explicit phrase “causes bodily injury.”
Marshall’s counsel did not object to that omission at trial.
The jury convicted; the court of appeals found the charge omission harmful (egregious harm) and reversed as to the family-assault conviction but upheld sufficiency of the evidence.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide (1) whether the evidence was legally sufficient and (2) whether omitting “bodily injury” from the application paragraph egregiously harmed Marshall.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of “bodily injury” in the application paragraph was reversible error (egregious harm standard because no timely objection)	Omission relieved State of proving an essential element (bodily injury); likely allowed conviction without proof of result	Omission harmless because the application required finding that Marshall impeded breathing, which is a particular type of bodily injury per statute and definition	Court: Error in omitting "bodily injury," but not egregiously harmful — impeding normal breathing is a bodily injury per se in this context, so the jury necessarily found bodily injury; conviction reinstated
Whether evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to prove the offense (impeding normal breathing / bodily injury)	Evidence insufficient because victim did not lose consciousness or completely stop breathing; thus no bodily injury	Evidence sufficient: victim testified she could not take deep breaths and pillow was pressed tightly; a jury could rationally find an impediment to normal breathing (a bodily injury) beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Evidence legally sufficient to support finding Marshall impeded normal breathing (and thus caused bodily injury per se)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reversible jury-charge error and egregious harm review)
Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App.) (broad definition of bodily injury in §1.07(a)(8))
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (requirements for a hypothetically correct jury charge)
Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors considered when assessing egregious harm to defendant)