Vigil, Vanda, PD-0740-15

Background

Defendant Vanda Vigil was convicted by a jury of Class A misdemeanor assault based on the complaining witness Elizabeth Jimenez’s testimony that Vigil and Vigil’s daughter attacked her at a bar; Vigil testified she only tried to intervene and a bouncer separated the parties.
Jimenez initially testified that Vigil pulled her hair and hit her head but later admitted she did not actually see who struck her because the attack came from behind.
The information alleged four specific manner-and-means theories (hair-pulling; grabbing/squeezing breast; pushing/throwing to the ground; striking about the head); one theory (breast-grab) was abandoned at trial.
After conviction, Vigil moved for a new trial alleging legal insufficiency (identity, causation, bodily injury); the trial court granted a new trial.
The State appealed; the court of appeals reversed, holding (1) victim testimony alone, if believed, is legally sufficient to support identity; (2) Jimenez’s testimony supported bodily injury; (3) a jury could infer Vigil as a primary actor even in a multi-assailant attack; and (4) manner-and-means allegations could be treated as non-dispositive in sufficiency review.
Petitioner (Vigil) seeks discretionary review, arguing the court of appeals misapplied Jackson v. Virginia, improperly treated manner-and-means allegations as surplusage, ignored prosecutor’s confession of doubt, and permitted inferences about primary-actor status without proof of specific conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Vigil)	Held (Court of Appeals)
Sufficiency: Is victim testimony alone sufficient to support identity?	Victim testimony, if believed, is legally sufficient to prove identity.	Victim’s testimony was internally inconsistent and admitted she did not see attackers, so evidence was legally insufficient under Jackson.	Victim testimony alone, if believed, is legally sufficient; identity upheld.
Sufficiency: Bodily injury element	Jimenez testified she was hit and felt pain, which suffices to prove bodily injury.	Photographs/video and inconsistencies undermine injury proof; manner/means allegations were not proven.	Testimony that victim was hit and felt pain was sufficient to prove bodily injury.
Causation / Primary actor in multi-assailant attack	Because Jimenez said both women attacked her and suffered injury, a jury could infer some injuries were attributable to Vigil.	State did not prove what specific conduct Vigil engaged in; cannot infer primary-actor status without evidence of defendant’s specific acts.	A jury may infer Vigil caused at least some injuries and thus be a primary actor.
Role of charging instrument (manner-and-means) in sufficiency review	Court may evaluate evidence against the offense generally; manner-and-means particulars need not be proved exactly if jury could convict under any alleged means.	Manner-and-means allegations that describe an essential element are not mere surplusage and must be proven; sufficiency should consider them (Malik/hypothetically correct charge).	Court treated manner-and-means as non-dispositive for sufficiency and affirmed conviction despite gaps as to particular manner-and-means.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes the legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974) (indictment is sufficient if it contains elements of the offense and fairly notifies defendant)
Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (prosecutor confessions of error merit weight but appellate courts still independently review)
Malik v. State, 956 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (sufficiency is measured against a hypothetically correct jury charge authorized by the indictment)
Schmidt v. State, 278 S.W.3d 353 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (manner-and-means allegations that describe an element may be facts required to be proven)