Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00779-CR
Anthony Newton HARRIS, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR9455 Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2018
AFFIRMED
A Bexar County, Texas jury found Appellant Anthony Newton Harris guilty of felony
assault—family violence and the trial court subsequently assessed punishment at five-years’
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a
$1,500.00 fine. On appeal, Harris contends the evidence was legally insufficient to support the
jury’s finding that he committed felony assault—family violence. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment. 04-16-00779-CR
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854,
860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); accord Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
“This standard recognizes the trier of fact’s role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of
the evidence . . . .” Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860; accord Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746. The reviewing
court must also give deference to the jury’s ability “to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “Each fact need not point directly and independently to the
guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support the conviction.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993)).
We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury by reevaluating the weight and
credibility of the evidence. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We defer
to the jury’s responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the evidence fairly, weigh the evidence, and
draw reasonable inferences. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; King, 29 S.W.3d at 562. The jury
alone decides whether to believe eyewitness testimony, and it alone resolves any conflicts in the
evidence. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15; Young v. State, 358 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d). In conducting a sufficiency review, “[w]e do not engage in
a second evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure that the jury
reached a rational decision.” Young, 358 S.W.3d at 801.
-2- 04-16-00779-CR
B. Arguments of the Parties
Harris contends no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that
Harris assaulted Patina Pryor. The State counters Harris’s argument relies on reweighing Pryor’s
credibility based on alleged inconsistencies, and under the legal sufficiency review standard, an
appellate court is not permitted to reassess a witness’s credibility.
C. Felony Assault—Family Violence
Pursuant to the indictment and the charge of the court, the State was required to prove the
following:
[O]n or about the 9th Day of September, 2013, in Bexar County, Texas, the defendant, Anthony Newton Harris, did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Patina Pryor, a member of Anthony Newton Harris’ family, household, or a person with whom Anthony Newton Harris has or has had a dating relationship, by pushing Patina Pryor with the hand of Anthony Newton Harris or by grabbing Patina Pryor with the hand of Anthony Newton Harris; And, before the commission of the offense alleged above, on the 22nd day of June, 2005, in Cause No. 869814, in Bexar County, Texas, Anthony Newton Harris was convicted of the offense of Assault Bodily Injury—Married, an offense against a member of Anthony Newton Harris’ family, household, or a person with whom Anthony Newton Harris has or has had a dating relationship;
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2018). Harris does not challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence of the prior conviction or that he was in a relationship with Patina
Pryor. We therefore limit our review of the evidence pertaining to the elements of the alleged
assault on September 9, 2013, against Patina Pryor. See id. § 22.01(a)(1) (requiring “intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another” to commit offense).
“‘Bodily injury’ means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(8). This definition encompasses even relatively minor physical
contact if it constitutes more than offensive touching. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 524 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). Direct evidence that a victim suffered pain is sufficient to support a finding of
-3- 04-16-00779-CR
bodily injury. Id. A jury may further infer that a victim actually felt or suffered physical pain
because people of common intelligence understand pain and everyday occurrences that cause pain.
See Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
D. Evidence at Trial
1. Patina Pryor
Pryor testified she met Harris in late 2012; they had a lot in common and were inseparable.
By the beginning of 2013, she and Harris were engaged. On September 9, 2013, Pryor came home
after an overnight shift and Harris was already asleep. She woke up around 2:15 p.m. and Harris’s
cellphone was ringing. Pryor answered the cellphone and a female asked for Harris. Pryor testified
the woman identified herself as “Classy,” and told Pryor she was Harris’s girlfriend. Pryor testified
“I got upset. And I went and threw the phone.” The cell phone hit the headboard, but it did not
hit Harris. When Harris inquired what was wrong, Pryor told him that his girlfriend wanted to talk
to him. Harris said, “nothing’s going on. Nothing’s going on.” Pryor testified that she announced
she was leaving for work and Harris “jumped up out of the bed right then and there and that’s
when he put his hands around my throat.” She continued that Harris “charged at me and put me
up against my door to my bedroom.”
Pryor grabbed a trashcan trying to use it against Harris, but the trash just spilled and went
everywhere. “And that’s when he picked up the trash, threw me on the bed and was holding me
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00779-CR
Anthony Newton HARRIS, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR9455 Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2018
AFFIRMED
A Bexar County, Texas jury found Appellant Anthony Newton Harris guilty of felony
assault—family violence and the trial court subsequently assessed punishment at five-years’
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a
$1,500.00 fine. On appeal, Harris contends the evidence was legally insufficient to support the
jury’s finding that he committed felony assault—family violence. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment. 04-16-00779-CR
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854,
860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); accord Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
“This standard recognizes the trier of fact’s role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of
the evidence . . . .” Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860; accord Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746. The reviewing
court must also give deference to the jury’s ability “to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “Each fact need not point directly and independently to the
guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
sufficient to support the conviction.” Id. (citing Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993)).
We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury by reevaluating the weight and
credibility of the evidence. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We defer
to the jury’s responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the evidence fairly, weigh the evidence, and
draw reasonable inferences. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13; King, 29 S.W.3d at 562. The jury
alone decides whether to believe eyewitness testimony, and it alone resolves any conflicts in the
evidence. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15; Young v. State, 358 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d). In conducting a sufficiency review, “[w]e do not engage in
a second evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure that the jury
reached a rational decision.” Young, 358 S.W.3d at 801.
-2- 04-16-00779-CR
B. Arguments of the Parties
Harris contends no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that
Harris assaulted Patina Pryor. The State counters Harris’s argument relies on reweighing Pryor’s
credibility based on alleged inconsistencies, and under the legal sufficiency review standard, an
appellate court is not permitted to reassess a witness’s credibility.
C. Felony Assault—Family Violence
Pursuant to the indictment and the charge of the court, the State was required to prove the
following:
[O]n or about the 9th Day of September, 2013, in Bexar County, Texas, the defendant, Anthony Newton Harris, did intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to Patina Pryor, a member of Anthony Newton Harris’ family, household, or a person with whom Anthony Newton Harris has or has had a dating relationship, by pushing Patina Pryor with the hand of Anthony Newton Harris or by grabbing Patina Pryor with the hand of Anthony Newton Harris; And, before the commission of the offense alleged above, on the 22nd day of June, 2005, in Cause No. 869814, in Bexar County, Texas, Anthony Newton Harris was convicted of the offense of Assault Bodily Injury—Married, an offense against a member of Anthony Newton Harris’ family, household, or a person with whom Anthony Newton Harris has or has had a dating relationship;
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2018). Harris does not challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence of the prior conviction or that he was in a relationship with Patina
Pryor. We therefore limit our review of the evidence pertaining to the elements of the alleged
assault on September 9, 2013, against Patina Pryor. See id. § 22.01(a)(1) (requiring “intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another” to commit offense).
“‘Bodily injury’ means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(8). This definition encompasses even relatively minor physical
contact if it constitutes more than offensive touching. Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 524 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009). Direct evidence that a victim suffered pain is sufficient to support a finding of
-3- 04-16-00779-CR
bodily injury. Id. A jury may further infer that a victim actually felt or suffered physical pain
because people of common intelligence understand pain and everyday occurrences that cause pain.
See Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
D. Evidence at Trial
1. Patina Pryor
Pryor testified she met Harris in late 2012; they had a lot in common and were inseparable.
By the beginning of 2013, she and Harris were engaged. On September 9, 2013, Pryor came home
after an overnight shift and Harris was already asleep. She woke up around 2:15 p.m. and Harris’s
cellphone was ringing. Pryor answered the cellphone and a female asked for Harris. Pryor testified
the woman identified herself as “Classy,” and told Pryor she was Harris’s girlfriend. Pryor testified
“I got upset. And I went and threw the phone.” The cell phone hit the headboard, but it did not
hit Harris. When Harris inquired what was wrong, Pryor told him that his girlfriend wanted to talk
to him. Harris said, “nothing’s going on. Nothing’s going on.” Pryor testified that she announced
she was leaving for work and Harris “jumped up out of the bed right then and there and that’s
when he put his hands around my throat.” She continued that Harris “charged at me and put me
up against my door to my bedroom.”
Pryor grabbed a trashcan trying to use it against Harris, but the trash just spilled and went
everywhere. “And that’s when he picked up the trash, threw me on the bed and was holding me
down stuffing trash in my mouth at the time.” Pryor testified she was able to free herself. Harris
tried to hit her with a porcelain dove. She was finally able to find her keys and get to work. Pryor
testified she left work early and called one of her guy friends to go to her house with her to pack
Harris’s bags so she could make him leave.
The next afternoon, while she was at the house, Harris showed up. He was banging on the
front door and on the windows. Pryor testified he turned the power off to the house. He told her -4- 04-16-00779-CR
that he just wanted his ring back and Pryor told him that if he would back away from the door, she
would give him the ring. But Harris must have heard her friend in the house and just started
yelling, “you’re already in there screwing some other guy.” Pryor’s friend told her that this was
between her and Harris and left.
Pryor testified that Harris started hitting her and she was yelling at him to get out of her
house. She was hoping her neighbors would hear, but no one came. Harris wanted to know if
Pryor was having sex with her friend and Harris became physical. She was trying to get away
from him, but he was trying to lift up her dress. Harris then pushed Pryor into the bedroom and
onto the bed and grabbed the porcelain dove that was next to her bed. Pryor realized she was
confused earlier in her testimony and the incident with the dove happened the second day and not
on the first day. Pryor testified Harris’s “demeanor like totally changed. It looked like—his pupils
were dilated. Looked like he was on something. Like I said, I don’t even know where he came
from the day I came home from work. . . . It looked like he was really, really angry.”
Pryor testified she was just trying to calm Harris down. He went into the kitchen and
grabbed a knife and she grabbed a crystal ashtray to defend herself. She put down the ashtray and
tried to leave the house. But Harris grabbed her by the arm and “slung” her back on the couch.
When she tried to get up, he continued to push her down. Eventually she was able to make it out
the front door.
Pryor testified that over the two days, he grabbed her by her arms, wrists, and around her
neck. Harris also pushed her multiple times. As a result, she suffered bruises on her left wrist
area. Pryor authenticated pictures of her injuries, including a broken blood vessel in her right eye.
2. Anthony Harris
Harris testified that when Pryor came home from work, he and his brother were asleep on
the couch and Pryor was mad because she did not know him. Contrary to Pryor’s testimony, Harris -5- 04-16-00779-CR
asserted the incident occurred on a Saturday, not in the middle of the week. Harris was adamant
that Pryor was not telling the truth. “The case that she’s talking about, that didn’t go down like
that.”
She was mad at my brother because he was there. But she didn’t know who he was. And I was trying to explain to her. But she was telling him he need to get out of her house and I was telling her, let me—you walking up on him and him not— he’s not mad, but you in his face. He’s happy to see you because I’ve been talking about you. Do you understand what I’m saying? So in the process of her telling him to leave, I was going to leave with him. She didn’t want me to leave. So as I was walking out the door she’s pulling on my shirt. When I—I grabbed her hand like what, you know, I’m saying, hey stop. She was making a scene, basically. And that’s what I didn’t want. Me and my brother we were just going to leave.
Harris testified that Pryor called him to come get his stuff and they did separate for a bit.
But he and Pryor got back together and he moved back into her house. Harris testified she never
threw his cellphone. Harris’s brother had his cellphone when Pryor grabbed it, jumped in the car,
and locked herself in the car. Pryor then scrolled through his text messages and the more she read,
the madder she became. But he left. Harris testified there was nothing he could do about the
phone at that point. Later that night, Pryor called Harris and told him to come and get his clothes
and he did. Pryor eventually reconciled with his ex-wife. He did not know until November of
2015, over two years later, when he was arrested following a traffic ticket, that Pryor had pressed
charges.
E. Analysis
Harris’s sufficiency challenge amounts to an attack on Pryor’s credibility. Although some
inconsistencies may have existed in Pryor’s accounts of the incident and the extent of her injuries,
it was the jury’s duty to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Linney v. State, 401 S.W.3d
764, 772 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d) (“[C]redibility of both the complainant
and the defendant is a central, often dispositive issue in . . . ‘he said, she said’ trials.”). Here, the
-6- 04-16-00779-CR
jury chose to believe Pryor’s version of events over Harris’s. See Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766,
777–78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (concluding the jury was not persuaded by defendant’s denials
because if they had been, they would have acquitted him). This court will defer to the jury’s
“responsibility . . . to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.756, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13). Thus, Harris’s claims that Pryor’s
version of events does not make sense play no part in our sufficiency review. See Balderas, 517
S.W.3d at 766.
Pryor testified that Harris assaulted her, grabbed her wrists and arm, pushed her, and
choked her. She testified that Harris’s actions caused her pain. See Harmon v. State, 167 S.W.3d
610, 614 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (holding the victim’s testimony alone,
if believed, is legally sufficient to support a conviction). Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, the jury could have found the essential elements of assault beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Adames, 353 S.W.3d at 860; Gear, 340 S.W.3d at 746. Accordingly, we
overrule Harris’s sole issue on appeal.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Do not publish
-7-