Taurus Jenkins v. State, 12-15-00039-CR

Indictment for Assault-Family Violence alleges August 13, 2013 incident; bench trial held Oct. 2014 with the State presenting hearsay evidence via Officer Hamel’s report.
Moore testified inconsistently and later provided an Affidavit of Non-Prosecution; Moore later testified but claimed lack of memory.
State introduced prior-conviction evidence (Exhibit 1) to enhance from misdemeanor to felony; court allowed reliance on hearsay through Hamel’s report.
Court questioned confrontation-clause issues; the defense moved for directed verdict; the court denied but invited briefing on admissibility of hearsay.
Sentencing occurred January 26, 2015, with a six-year term; Motion for New Trial denied March 25, 2015; appeal filed thereafter.
This appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence, hearsay/Confrontation Clause errors, erroneous enhancement based on Chapter 19, and denial of a directed verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction	Jenkins	State	Evidence legally insufficient; conviction based on hearsay evidence rather than direct testimony.
Confrontation Clause error from hearsay evidence	Jenkins	State	Hearsay statements admitted via Officer Hamel violate Confrontation Clause; reversible error.
Validity of prior-conviction enhancement under Chapter 19	Jenkins	State	Indictment erroneously references Chapter 19; prior conviction does not prove Chapter 19 offense; remand for proper offense classification.
Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict	Jenkins	State	Directed verdict should have been granted based on lack of testimonial evidence and confrontation concerns.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (guides sufficiency review and credibility of the fact-finder)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (how to evaluate hypothetically-correct jury charge)
Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (credibility of witnesses and appellate deference to jury)
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (ties between direct and circumstantial evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (non-testimonial 9-1-1 context vs. testimonial statements)
Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (admissibility and abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (directed-verdict standard and sufficiency review)
Rohrscheib v. State, 934 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (standard for directed verdict and evidentiary rulings)