Rodney Joe Garrett v. State, 04-15-00289-CR

Background

Defendant Rodney Joe Garrett drove a stolen semi in a high-speed, multi-jurisdiction police pursuit during which he fired a shotgun out of the semi toward pursuing deputies.
Deputies (in marked vehicles with lights/siren) testified they were fired upon multiple times; spent shotgun shells and live rounds were recovered in the semi and parking lot; gunshot-residue testing and firearms lab testing connected Garrett to the shotgun discharge.
Garrett was captured after running into a mall store; he made post-arrest statements and gave a recorded interview admitting he fired shots to scare officers so they would stop the chase and that he intentionally aimed high ("shoot above them") to avoid killing or injuring anyone.
Indictment charged aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon (elevated to a first‑degree felony because the victim was a public servant Garrett allegedly knew was one).
At trial the jury convicted Garrett; he elected jury punishment and received 34 years’ imprisonment. Defense raised three appellate issues: legal sufficiency of intent/knowledge, erroneous jury instruction (permissive presumption of knowledge based on uniform/badge), and exclusion of certain punishment-phase testimony from Garrett’s mother.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garrett)	Held (trial record / rulings below)
1. Sufficiency of evidence that Garrett intentionally/knowingly threatened imminent bodily injury	Evidence of multiple shots fired at deputies, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and admissions support that Garrett knowingly threatened officers	Garrett admitted he aimed high to scare, not to injure or kill; his recorded statements negated the requisite intent or knowledge to threaten imminent bodily injury	Jury convicted; appellant argues legal insufficiency on appeal (trial: conviction entered)
2. Jury instruction presuming knowledge the victim was a public servant if wearing distinctive uniform/badge	Instruction properly reflects Penal Code §22.02(c) permissive presumption and is permissible where predicate facts exist	No evidence showed Deputy Crawford was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge at times of shootings; inclusion of the presumption was improper and harmed Garrett	Trial court overruled defense objection and charged jury with the presumption; appellant argues this was reversible error
3. Exclusion of punishment‑phase testimony from Garrett’s mother	State objected to certain questions as irrelevant to punishment; court sustained objections	Mother’s testimony about her feelings and insights into Garrett’s character and rehabilitation needs was relevant and helpful to jury sentencing determination	Trial court sustained relevance objections and excluded several defense questions; appellant contends abuse of discretion and requests new sentencing hearing

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App.) (remedy for legally insufficient evidence and related constitutional analysis)
Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (permissive presumptions and due process analysis)
Willis v. State, 790 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim. App.) (application of permissive presumptions under Texas law)