Steven Kent Holloway v. State, 05-16-00095-CR

Appellant Steven Kent Holloway was convicted by a jury of (1) assault on a public servant (third-degree felony after enhancements found true) and (2) possession of methamphetamine <1 gram (state jail felony); sentences: 30 years and 2 years respectively.
Police responded to a 9-1-1 report of a suspicious man in an electronic cigarette store; officers found Holloway sleeping in front of the store and spoke with him.
Officer Bush suspected stimulant intoxication and obtained Holloway’s consent to search his person; during the search Holloway pulled away and a struggle began.
Officer Hutson testified Holloway flipped him, landed on top of him, grabbed/squeezed Hutson’s groin, causing pain; Bush corroborated seeing hands near the groin and hearing Hutson yell; pepper spray was used and Holloway was handcuffed. A small bag of methamphetamine was found in Holloway’s back pocket.
Several civilian and police witnesses testified about the struggle but none of the civilians or other officers testified they saw a groin grab; Holloway denied grabbing or hitting officers and denied consenting to the search.
Holloway appealed, arguing: (1) insufficient evidence to prove he caused bodily injury to Hutson by grabbing him, and (2) the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of resisting arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holloway)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault on a public servant	Evidence (Hutson’s testimony and Bush’s corroboration) shows Holloway grabbed and squeezed Hutson’s groin, causing pain; circumstantial and direct evidence support conviction	Holloway: no witness (other than Hutson) saw the grab; he denied the conduct; argues evidence insufficient	Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Trial court refusal to charge lesser-included offense (resisting arrest)	N/A (State opposed lesser instruction as not included in proof for charged offense)	Holloway: testimony from civilians and some officers showed behavior consistent with resisting arrest; jury should have been instructed on that lesser offense	Affirmed — resisting arrest is not a lesser-included offense under the indictment’s allegations because elements differ (e.g., assault includes reckless mental state and bodily injury; resisting requires intentional conduct and force to prevent an arrest)

Benavidez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate remedy when evidence legally insufficient)
Owens v. State, 135 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (legal-sufficiency challenge procedural ordering)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Jackson standard and factfinder deference for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (sufficiency principles)
Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (two-step test for lesser-included jury charges)
Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (second-step analysis for lesser-included offenses)
Rice v. State, 333 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (some-evidence standard for lesser-included instruction)
Steele v. State, 490 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (distinguishing elements of assault vs resisting arrest)