Roderick King v. State
06-14-00166-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Defendant Roderick King was indicted for Assault Family Violence (enhanced to a felony); State proceeded on paragraph B and later filed a further enhancement raising punishment range at the last pretrial stage.
- Incident: on Nov. 15, 2013, complainant Joyce Dawkins and King had an argument at her home that became physical; Dawkins sustained a forehead and arm injury and took photographs but refused medical treatment.
- Dawkins testified she did not know exactly how the injuries occurred and said strikes by King’s hand were not hard enough to have caused the injuries; other eyewitness testimony was limited and inconsistent (her brother heard a commotion but did not see the assault).
- Police observed injuries qualifying as bodily injury; Detective follow-up was minimal and King did not testify or present witnesses at trial.
- At trial the jury found King guilty; at punishment he pleaded true to an enhancement and received seven years’ imprisonment. Defense appeals on sufficiency of the evidence and on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Dawkins’ injuries were caused by King’s hand as alleged in the indictment | State relied on complainant’s testimony and police observations to prove bodily injury resulting from the assault | King argues the evidence was insufficient because Dawkins expressly testified she did not know how the injuries were inflicted and that blows by King’s hand were not enough to have caused them; indictment alleged a specific mode (striking with hand) | At trial the jury convicted King; on appeal King challenges sufficiency (appellant brief seeks reversal/acquittal or new trial) |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument allegedly shifted burden to defendant | State argued during closing that defense produced no evidence on causation, contending it was a fair response to trial themes | King contends that argument improperly shifted the burden of proof to him and that the trial court erred by overruling the objection despite instructing jury the burden remained with the State | Trial court overruled the objection but instructed jury burden was on the State; appellant claims the ruling was erroneous and harmful (appellate resolution not contained in this brief) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (legal-sufficiency principles and hypothetically correct jury charge)
- Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (sufficiency review framework)
- Young v. State, 14 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (sufficiency of the evidence analysis)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (use of hypothetically correct jury charge in sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (permitted areas of jury argument)
- Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (permitted areas of jury argument)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (material variance between indictment allegation and proof requires reversal)