Zachary R. Robinson v. State, 02-15-00113-CR

Defendant Zachary R. Robinson was charged with assault-family-violence and interference with an emergency call; jury acquitted on assault but convicted on interference. Appellant challenges legal sufficiency of the interference conviction.
Incident (Sept. 8, 2014): Robinson was an invited guest at Rachel Kimberling’s home; an argument escalated after they were in bed and Kimberling asked him to leave.
Kimberling testified she threatened to call 911 repeatedly in past arguments as a tactic to make Robinson leave; at trial she admitted she threatened 911 in this incident primarily to get him out, not because she genuinely believed she faced imminent assault.
Kimberling’s phone was taken by Robinson (he says inadvertently), there were scuffles (doors/hand/foot slammed), and later Kimberling left to ask a neighbor to call 911; neighbor testified Kimberling was not acting like a person who was afraid and Robinson was in his truck preparing to leave.
Police officer described Robinson’s behavior as defensive/retreating; evidence showed Robinson had left a phone in Kimberling’s car, supporting his claim he took a phone by mistake.
Appellant’s legal argument: the State failed to prove (1) Kimberling reasonably believed she was in fear of imminent assault (the statutory definition of “emergency”), and (2) Robinson knowingly prevented or interfered with an emergency call; therefore the conviction is legally insufficient and should be reversed and rendered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kimberling reasonably believed she was in fear of imminent assault (the statutory “emergency” element)	State relied on Kimberling’s 911-related statements and sequence of events to show she believed she was in fear.	Robinson (appellant) argues Kimberling repeatedly used 911 threats as a tactic to make him leave, followed him rather than fleeing, and neutral testimony shows no reasonable fear — so no emergency.	Appellant contends evidence insufficient to show a reasonable belief of imminent assault; appellant requests reversal (no appellate decision included in this brief).
Whether Robinson knowingly prevented or interfered with an emergency call	State must prove Robinson knew he was preventing/interfering with an emergency call.	Robinson argues he did not know Kimberling was making (or intended to make) an emergency call, took the phone by mistake, and Kimberling was ultimately able to get a neighbor to call 911.	Appellant contends evidence insufficient to prove knowledge or actual interference; appellant seeks reversal (no appellate decision included in this brief).

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal-sufficiency review standard under due process)
Louis v. State, 393 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas sufficiency-of-evidence principles applying Jackson)