Christopher Morrison v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00092-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00092-CR

Christopher MORRISON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR4707 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2026

AFFIRMED

A jury convicted Christopher Morrison of two counts of the offense of deadly conduct. On

appeal, Morrison argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction. After

reviewing the record under the applicable standard of review, we conclude the evidence is

sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm. 04-25-00092-CR

BACKGROUND

Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

not recite them except as necessary to advise the parties of our decision and the basic reasons for

it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

Morrison was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX.

PENAL CODE § 22.02. Morrison pled not guilty and was tried before a jury. The trial evidence

reflects that Morrison fired a BB gun from his apartment toward the apartment complex swimming

pool where a father and his three-year-old son were swimming. The jury found Morrison guilty of

two counts of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor deadly conduct. This appeal followed.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his sole issue, Morrison contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his

conviction. 1 According to Morrison, the State failed to prove the complainants were placed in

imminent danger of serious bodily injury because the evidence did not establish that the BB gun

was capable of causing serious bodily injury.

To determine whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, a reviewing court

views all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to decide whether any rational trier

of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2010). This requires the reviewing court to defer to the jury’s credibility and weight

determinations because the jury is the sole judge of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be

1 Morrison also argues the evidence is factually insufficient to support his conviction, but we need not address this complaint. “[T]he Jackson v. Virginia legal-sufficiency standard is the only standard that a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (recognizing that Brooks v. State “abolished factual-sufficiency review as it applies to criminal convictions.”).

-2- 04-25-00092-CR

given testimony. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899. A reviewing court

determines whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the combined and

cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Clayton

v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16–

17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). When the record supports conflicting inferences, a reviewing court

must presume that the fact finder resolved the conflicts in favor of the prosecution and defer to

that determination. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326; Garcia v. State, 367 S.W.3d 683, 686–87 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2012).

A person commits the offense of misdemeanor deadly conduct if he “recklessly engages in

conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.” See TEX. PENAL CODE §

22.05(a),(e). At trial, the State presented evidence to support the deadly conduct convictions. The

State’s expert David Pendleton testified that the BB gun used in this case is fired by using

compressed gas. Pendelton performed a velocity test on the BB gun. A velocity test measures how

fast a projectile is launched from the barrel by using a piece of equipment called a chronograph.

Pendelton compared the results of the velocity test on the BB gun, which was 315.4 to 337.40 feet

per second, with the minimum threshold needed to cause bodily harm, which is 246 to 249 feet per

second. Pendelton also relied on the BB gun owner’s manual, which states the BB gun is capable

of causing serious bodily injury or death.

Morrison argues that because Pendelton’s velocity test was performed in a laboratory

environment and was not tested using the actual distances at the scene, Pendleton could not

conclude that the distance from the shooter’s apartment was close enough to cause serious bodily

injury. Although Pendleton had not test-fired the BB gun outside of the laboratory, the jury could

have rationally considered the results of Pendleton’s velocity testing on the BB gun, which

-3- 04-25-00092-CR

exceeded the velocity considered necessary to cause serious bodily injury, and could have

reasonably concluded the BB gun was capable of causing such an injury at distances greater than

that which existed in the laboratory. Such a reasonable inference was further supported by the

approximate distance between Morrison’s balcony and the swimming pool, and testimony from

one of the complainants, Jesse Yzaguirre, who was in the swimming pool with his three-year-old

son at the time of the incident. Yzaguirre testified that he heard three loud splashes in the pool,

one of which was close to his head, and loud enough to resemble a bird falling into the water. He

also heard the sound of breaking glass. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation,

another tenant reported that a sliding glass door in a different apartment had been shattered by an

unknown projectile. That apartment was located on the opposite side of the pool and faced the

balcony of the unit where Morrison and the rifle barrel were observed. The police investigation

determined the existence of a single hole in the shattered glass door consistent with damage caused

by a BB projectile.

Based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the jury could have rationally found

that the BB gun was capable of causing serious bodily injury. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-4-