Reed, Bryan William
PD-0166-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Victim Dana Soultaire (62) was assaulted outside an apartment after complaining about loud music; he was struck in the head/face, knocked unconscious, and later treated for multiple facial injuries and eye trauma.
- Appellant Bryan Reed admitted at trial to hitting Soultaire multiple times while intoxicated and testified he took ‘‘full responsibility.’’
- Medical evidence: scalp laceration stapled, laceration over eye requiring stitches, hematoma consistent with a shoe imprint, concussion symptoms, and a rapidly progressing cataract in the right eye diagnosed as a traumatic cataract by an ophthalmologist.
- Treating physician testified the concussion initially posed a substantial risk of death and that the eye injury caused a protracted impairment likely requiring surgery.
- Reed was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and sentenced to seven years; the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting sufficiency challenges to identity and to the existence of serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to identity of assailant | Reed: evidence did not exclude co‑participant (Kennard); victim had his back and could not identify the striker; Reed’s admissions came after denial of directed verdict and should be treated as punishment admissions | State: Reed admitted at guilt phase he struck Soultaire repeatedly; medical injuries match his description; trial court properly credited his guilt‑phase testimony | Court affirmed: a rational factfinder could conclude Reed, not Kennard, struck Soultaire |
| Sufficiency re: serious bodily injury | Reed: injuries were not shown to be ‘‘serious’’ beyond a reasonable doubt; ophthalmologist could not definitively tie rapid cataract growth to trauma; concussion risk later abated | State: medical testimony showed traumatic cataract, protracted impairment of vision, and concussion with ongoing symptoms—sufficient to prove serious bodily injury | Court affirmed: the right‑eye traumatic cataract and protracted vision impairment supported serious bodily injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (distinguishing ‘‘bodily injury’’ from ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ and defining ‘‘protracted’’)
- Nash v. State, 123 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (clarifying assessment of impairment at time of injury for serious bodily injury analysis)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate standard: whether any rational trier of fact could have found essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)