Tracey Dee Calvin v. State, 01-15-00965-CR

Background

In Oct. 2014 Tracey Dee Calvin was treated in a hospital ER after an apparent drug overdose; she was restrained to a stretcher and was repeatedly agitated and combative.
After an initial removal of restraints, Calvin became combative again; staff re-applied soft restraints tethered to the stretcher that allowed limited movement.
While nurses Gaddis and Young entered to draw blood via an IV, Calvin lurched and attempted to head-butt Nurse Young, was warned that assault would be a felony, and replied she didn’t care.
Calvin freed an ankle restraint, kicked Nurse Gaddis in the face (causing pain), and attempted a second kick; campus police were contacted.
A jury convicted Calvin of third-degree felony assault of emergency services personnel; sentenced to 4 years, suspended, and placed on 4 years’ community supervision.
On appeal Calvin raised (1) trial-court exclusion of a defense expert psychologist and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to establish the required mental state for assault.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Calvin)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove intentional/knowing/reckless conduct causing bodily injury to ER nurse	Testimony and medical records show Calvin was alert, understood the situation, threatened/attempted head-butt, acknowledged felony warning, then freed her leg and kicked the nurse — a rational jury could infer required culpable mental state	Calvin argued she only acted combative/agitated and did not intend or know the restraint would break; the restraint’s failure caused the contact, absolving culpability	Affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard to support conviction (jury could infer intent/knowledge/recklessness)
Exclusion of defense expert psychologist	Court and State argued defense failed to comply with a discovery order to disclose experts and failed to timely notify; trial court struck expert; no offer of proof was made to preserve harm	Calvin argued discovery order was invalid under art. 39.14(b) (signed the first day of trial) and that expert testimony was necessary	Affirmed: appellate court declined to reach art. 39.14(b) theory (not raised at trial) and held exclusion was not preserved for review because no offer of proof showed the expert’s expected testimony or harm

Key Cases Cited

Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussing sufficiency standard and single-review approach)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard application in Texas sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishing reasonable-doubt sufficiency standard)
Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (sufficiency standard reference)
Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of Jackson review)
Britain v. State, 412 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (when evidence is legally insufficient)
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)
Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (culpable mental state inferred from circumstances)
Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (intent may be inferred from acts, words, conduct)
Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation rule for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Bailey, 201 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review restricted to theories raised at trial)
Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (improper to reverse on unraised theory)
Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (requirement of offer of proof to preserve excluded testimony)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (error affects substantial rights when it has a substantial and injurious effect on verdict)