Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 17 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 58780,58780
• Citation: 696 S.W.2d 896
• Parties: Adolphus WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 896

696 S.W.2d 896

Adolphus WILLIAMS, Appellant, v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 58780.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas En Banc.

July 17, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1985.

Donald W. Rogers, Jr., Truett H. Vestal, court appointed on appeal, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Former Dist. Atty. and Michael Kuhn and Keno M. Henderson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION

W.C. DAVIS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted, by a jury, of aggravated assault.The court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement.

Appellant was originally charged, in a two-count indictment, with attempted murder and with aggravated assault by causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon.(SeeV.T.C.A., Penal Code, Secs. 15.01,19.02,22.02(a)(4)and22.01).

The State elected to proceed only upon the attempted murder count, abandoning the aggravated assault count.The jury was instructed upon aggravated assault as a lesser included offense.

Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to prove serious bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt.¹

The court's charge pertaining to the lesser included offense instructed the jury that:

if you further find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Gene Jennings by shooting him with a gun, and that said defendant, in shooting the said Gene Jennings with said gun, did in fact actually cause Gene Jennings serious bodily injury thereby, though he may not have so intended, then you will find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault.

Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant.(emphasis added)

The court's charge to the jury authorized a conviction for aggravated assault if the jury found that appellant used a deadly weapon, namely a gun, and actually caused serious bodily injury.These two theories, set forth in the conjunctive, required proof independent of each other to support a verdict of guilty.

The complainant testified that he was shot in the buttocks, back, and thigh.The hospital report noted bullet wounds in buttocks and thigh and a hole in the lower back.

Complainant testified that he bled profusely, but according to testimony, the hospital report indicates no transfusion was required.The policeman approached by the complainant to investigate testified he knew the complainant had been shot only after the complainant said so, indicating no obvious and profuse bleeding.

The record indicates that, after being shot, the complainant fled on foot, then walked back to his car and drove to a nearby corner where he flagged down a police car.The complainant refused to go to the hospital immediately, but insisted that the police return with him to the scene of the shooting to find his wife, who had fled unharmed.

At the scene, the complainant pointed appellant's car out to the police, and observed appellant and two companions being removed from the nearby building where all the parties resided.After finding his wife, the complainant agreed to be transported to the hospital.

The complainant stayed in the hospital less than two days.Because the incident occurred on a weekend, he missed no work.

No testimony was offered as to the seriousness of appellant's injuries except for the introduction of hospital records by the custodian thereof.As discussed above, these records indicate that no transfusion was necessary, that two bullet wounds and one "hole" were found on the complainant, they indicate that no surgery was performed, and that two bullets were left lodged in the complainant.

No testimony, expert or non-expert, was offered suggesting that the complainant had suffered either a substantial risk of death or a serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 1.07(a)(34).

In Gonzalez v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 172 S.W.2d 97(1943), the defendant stabbed the complaining witness three times.Two of the wounds were two inches deep and near the heart.The attending physician testified that such wounds were not such that would probably cause death or apprehension of loss of limb.Although working under a different standard, ²the Court held such was not sufficient to prove serious bodily injury.

In Sanchez v. State, 543 S.W.2d 132(Tex.Cr.App.1976), the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.At the time of punishment, the State introduced a written stipulation by appellant, in which he admitted that he had caused serious bodily injury to complainant, the hospital bill pertaining to the complainant, statements by witnesses to the event, and statements of police officers who investigated the incident.Appellant did not stipulate to what the attending physician would testify.On rebuttal, the State introduced the emergency room record regarding the complainant, along with his hospital history record.The State further called the complainant in an attempt to prove the seriousness of his injuries.This Court held that nowhere in the record was there evidence that the injuries complained of created a substantial risk of death.Neither the medical records, nor the complainant's testimony substantiated the claim of serious bodily injury.

Serious bodily injury has been defined by our present Penal Code; and, as set forth above, must be proven by evidence in order to substantiate and support the verdict.A knife wound, or a gunshot wound, although caused by a deadly weapon ³ such as a knife or a gun, is not, per se, serious bodily injury.The shooting of an individual is a serious and grave matter.Yet, it is the burden of the State to prove that such an act created a substantial risk of death, or caused death, a serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the functions of any bodily member or organ.SeeV.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 1.07(a)(34).

The evidence presented by the State is not sufficient to prove serious bodily injury.The complaining witness never testified to the extent of his injuries, nor was any evidence shown in the medical records that those injuries created a substantial risk of death,...