TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00085-CR
Fay Eugene Cantwell, Appellant v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. FR83631, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Fay Eugene Cantwell challenges his conviction for the first-degree offense of aggravated assault against a family or household member with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a), (b)(1)(A). In two issues, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
Police officers and paramedics responded to an emergency in a hotel parking lot.
Video footage from Officer Edwin Guzman, Jr.’s bodycam was admitted into evidence at trial. It shows that they found a woman on the ground in the parking lot. She was identified from her driver’s license as Shawnette Jimenez. She stated that she fell out of a vehicle and then was run over by a vehicle going twenty-five miles per hour. Officer Guzman found out from the hotel
2
manager that she and her boyfriend, Cantwell, lived together at the hotel. The manager showed the responding officers a recording from the parking lot surveillance camera.
The surveillance video from the hotel parking lot was admitted into evidence. It shows that Jimenez walked across the hotel parking lot. A white truck drove through the parking lot on the opposite side of the parking lot but going in the same direction as Jimenez. As both the truck and Jimenez reached the far side of the parking lot, the truck turned a corner and drove toward Jimenez. The truck struck her with its front-passenger-side panel. She fell to the ground, and the truck’s back tire ran over her. The truck visibly bounced up and down as it ran over her. The truck was driven out of frame without stopping. Three people who were at the building next door ran to Jimenez and stayed with her until EMS and police arrived.
According to the bodycam footage, the hotel manager told Officer Guzman that the white truck belonged to Cantwell’s employer and that the couple fought a lot. The manager also mentioned that Cantwell had not picked up his room key that day. Based on the information provided by the manager, officers began efforts to locate Cantwell. The hotel manager called Cantwell’s boss to tell him that his truck had been involved in a car accident and that the police were looking for Cantwell. That same night, Cantwell called Officer Guzman and agreed to meet him at the police station to give a statement. Cantwell spoke with Officer Guzman at the station and then did an interview with Sergeant Tom Wolff.
Video of Cantwell’s interview with Sergeant Wolff was admitted into evidence.
Cantwell told the sergeant that he was at the hotel in his truck with Jimenez when she punched him in the jaw. He stated that he made her get out of the truck. He told Sergeant Wolff that she was walking towards their hotel room where they lived together. He stated that she was carrying a beer bottle and that they both had been drinking. Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that he thought
3
Jimenez was going to lock him out of the room and destroy his belongings. He stated that he drove over to the room and came to a complete stop as she was approaching his truck. He stated that while the truck was fully stopped, she threw her body against his truck and hit the truck with the beer bottle. He stated that she then threw herself to the ground and “played dead.” He stated that he slowly backed the truck up and drove around her. He stated that he saw her get up, so he drove away. He stated that he was planning to come back once she had time to cool off. Cantwell told the sergeant that his boss called him and told him that Jimenez was in the hospital and that he needed to contact the police. Cantwell signed a statement reflecting his side of the story, summarized above, which was admitted into evidence.
Sergeant Wolff then showed Cantwell the hotel video footage. Cantwell initially insisted that the video supports his story. He stated that it shows his vehicle “slow” and “brake” and “not even hit her, she walked into it.” When Sergeant Wolff pointed out that the truck never stopped, Cantwell replied that he “was going to pull in and stop.” When Sergeant Wolff pointed out that his back tire ran over a “huge bump,” Cantwell responded that he did not feel a bump at the time and insisted that he did not run her over and that she just walked into his truck. He explained that he could not feel anything in the truck because it is a large truck. However, he also stated that he felt it when she hit the truck with the beer bottle.
After Sergeant Wolff pointed out that the video footage shows his truck running over Jimenez, Cantwell admitted that it “does look bad,” but blamed the angle of the camera for not showing that the truck slowed down. He also blamed Jimenez and claimed that she did this on purpose to make him look bad and get him in trouble. Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that Jimenez has done things like this before and that “she runs into [his] truck all the time.” He told the sergeant, “If I had wanted to run her over, I would have killed that bitch.” Throughout the
4
interview Cantwell called Jimenez multiple disparaging names, including “crazy,” “mental,” “drama queen,” “bitch,” “dumbass,” and “idiot.” At one point he apologized to Sergeant Wolff for calling Jimenez “a bitch” but explained that she just made him so mad. Approximately seven minutes after being shown the video of Jimenez being run over by his truck, he stated that he hoped she was all right. He then continued calling her names and insisting that “she walked into [his] truck.”
Officer Guzman, Sergeant Wolff, and the hotel manager testified at trial.
Tempress Heller, one of the three people who ran to Jimenez’s aid after she was hit by the truck, also testified. She testified that she was working as a caregiver for an elderly client when her boyfriend got her attention and told her that a woman had been hit by a truck in the parking lot next door. She ran to the woman and applied pressure to her stomach. She testified that Jimenez told her that it felt like her stomach was going to fall out of her. Heller testified that she saw a bone sticking out through Jimenez’s pants.
Jimenez testified that she and Cantwell have a child together. She testified that they were not living together at the time of trial but were still together. She testified that she loved him and that he was her life partner. She stated that he was financially supporting her and their child.
Jimenez testified about their living situation at the time of the incident. She explained that she and Cantwell had been evicted from their home and were living in the hotel. She testified that Cantwell’s boss had arranged for them to live there in exchange for their doing pest control services for the hotel, which is what Cantwell did for work at that time. She agreed that if it was not for Cantwell, she would have been homeless.
5
Jimenez testified that she did not have a key to the hotel room the night of the incident. She explained that the hotel management required Cantwell to go to the office to get a new key made each day and that she was not allowed in the hotel office. She testified that Cantwell had gotten out of the truck to go get a key made and that she got out and started walking across the parking lot. On cross examination, she testified that she had punched him while in the truck.
Jimenez testified about being hit by Cantwell’s truck. She testified that she had been drinking that day and stepped in front of the truck as a way of testing if he loved her and for attention. She explained that she had done similar things like this in the past, which she said were caused by her drinking and mental health issues. She testified that she was not taking her mental-health medication at the time of the incident. She testified that the truck was going very slowly when it hit her and ran her over. She testified that after the truck ran her over, she stood up, shouted Cantwell’s name, and then fell. The hotel video was played for her, and she was asked if she had misremembered that she stood up after being hit. She replied that she could not see the video clearly but that she “was wondering when [she] was going to stand up also.” She testified that she did not think Cantwell saw her but also testified that she made eye contact with him and saw him mouth, “no,” when the truck struck her and knocked her down. She explained that the “no” was him warning her not to step in front of the truck and that she did not think he knew he ran over her. She testified that Sergeant Wolff had talked to her in the hospital and she told him that Cantwell had not seen her.
Jimenez testified that she had to have two surgeries to repair her injuries from being run over—a ruptured bladder and a compound fracture to her pelvis. Her medical records were admitted into evidence. She testified that after the incident, none of her family came to
6
visit her and Cantwell came and took care of her. She testified that they had spoken about the incident many times.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury found Cantwell guilty of aggravated assault against a family or household member with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a), (b)(1)(A). The trial court sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.32. Cantwell appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW The sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined in a hypothetically correct jury charge, which is “one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). “When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “This standard requires the appellate court to defer ‘to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). “We may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder.” Id. Although factfinders “may not speculate about the meaning of facts or evidence,” they are permitted to “draw any reasonable inferences from the facts so long as
7
each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial.” Id. “We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution.” Id. This is because the factfinders are “the exclusive judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the testimony.” Id. “Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equally probative, and circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to uphold a conviction so long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.” Id.
DISCUSSION
In his first issue, Cantwell contends that the evidence failed to prove his mental state at the time of the offense. In his second issue, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he used the truck as a deadly weapon.
Mental State As relevant to the charged offense, a person commits aggravated assault if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to another. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a). “A person acts intentionally . . . with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.” Id. § 6.03(a). “A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.” Id. § 6.03(b). “A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.” Id. “A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but
8
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.” Id. § 6.03(c). “The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.” Id.
Cantwell contends that the only evidence of his mental state is from his statements made during his police interview and that those establish that he did not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause Jimenez’s injuries. We disagree. Intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and the conduct of the defendant. Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). During the police interview, Cantwell expressed anger towards Jimenez and told Sergeant Wolff that she had punched him in the face and that he had reacted by kicking her out of the truck, which according to the video evidence would have occurred minutes before he ran her over. See Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516, 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (explaining that “[a]lthough motive and opportunity are not elements . . . they are circumstances indicative of guilt.”). After hitting Jimenez with the front corner of his truck and running her over with a back tire, he drove away without stopping. See Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noting that inference of guilt may be drawn from flight); Dobbins v. State, 228 S.W.3d 761, 764–65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. dism’d.) (explaining that defendant’s intent can be inferred from defendant’s conduct after offense was committed).
The jury was free not to believe Cantwell’s explanation that he was unaware that he ran Jimenez over. See Febus v. State, 542 S.W.3d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“A jury may accept one version of the facts and reject another, and it may reject any part of a witness’s testimony.”). Further, a defendant’s inconsistent and false statements and implausible
9
explanations made to police “are probative of wrongful conduct and are also circumstances of guilt.” Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. Cantwell made multiple false, inconsistent, or implausible statements to the police. He stated that his truck came to a complete stop before Jimenez threw herself onto his truck and then to the ground and “played dead.” He stated that he backed up and carefully drove around her. He also stated that he saw her stand up before he drove away. However, the video and the severity of Jimenez’s injuries directly contradict those statements. The footage demonstrates that he did not come to a stop before hitting her, and Jimenez told Officer Guzman that the vehicle that hit her was going twenty-five miles per hour. The video also contradicts that she stood up at any point after being run over, although it is unclear from the footage how much she was able to sit up or attempt to get up after being run over by the truck.
Further, after being confronted by the video, Cantwell changed his story to say that he was going to slow down or park the car before Jimenez ran into his truck. He also blamed the angle of the video for not showing that he slowed down. Moreover, although Cantwell told police that he did not feel it when he ran over Jimenez, the video demonstrates that his truck significantly bounced as he ran her over. Further, Cantwell claimed that he felt it when the truck initially collided with her, which did not cause the same level of visible disturbance to the truck.
Additionally, Cantwell told Sergeant Wolff that he drove towards Jimenez that night because he thought she was going to lock him out of their room and destroy his belongings. However, Jimenez testified that she did not have her own access to the hotel room. She explained that they had to get a new key for the hotel room each day, that only Cantwell could get access to the key, and that he had not done so that day. The hotel manager told Officer Guzman that Cantwell had not picked up the hotel key that day.
10
The jury was free not to believe Cantwell’s given reason for driving toward Jimenez or his explanation that it was her fault and that he did not know she was injured. See Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that jury is entitled to judge credibility of the witnesses, and can choose to believe all, some, or none of their testimony). The jury could have believed that Cantwell’s statements were false, misleading, or implausible and reasonably inferred that he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessness caused Jimenez’s injuries. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50–52 (explaining that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as acts, words, and conduct of defendant and concluding that evidence was sufficient to support murder conviction based in part on defendant’s false statements to police); see also Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (explaining that “[t]he circumstances of the crime itself are always important in determining the mental state of the accused at the commission of the offense” and that attempts “to elude officers can indicate knowledge of wrongful conduct”).
In support of this issue, Cantwell emphasizes Jimenez’s testimony that supported his defense theory. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Jimenez’s testimony that supported Cantwell’s defense theory. See Chambers, 805 S.W.2d at 461. They could have reasonably believed that her statements and explanations were implausible based on her strong financial dependence on him and the video evidence.
The jury could have reasonably interpreted the collective video evidence to support a finding that Cantwell aimed for and hit Jimenez with his truck while going approximately twenty-five miles per hour through a parking lot. Further, the jurors could have reasonably believed that Cantwell intended to injure Jimenez when he aimed his truck at her while going that speed and did not stop. See Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549, 556 n.18
11
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“It is both a common-sense inference and an appellate presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts.”).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Cantwell possessed the requisite mental state when he injured Jimenez by hitting her with his truck. The evidence was also sufficient to establish that she suffered serious bodily injury and was a member of his household. We overrule his first issue.
Deadly weapon finding Cantwell contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the deadly-weapon finding. In support, he asserts that the incident was an accident caused by the victim’s actions and that there is no evidence that he drove recklessly or intended to use the truck as a weapon. As discussed above in detail, there is sufficient evidence to support that he intentionally caused Jimenez bodily injury when he drove his truck into her. Further, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support that his truck was intentionally used as a deadly weapon.
A “deadly weapon” is “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(17)(b). Driving an automobile in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury is using it as a deadly weapon. Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). “‘Serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(46). “In order to sustain a deadly-weapon finding, the
12
evidence must demonstrate that: 1) the object meets the definition of a deadly weapon; 2) the deadly weapon was used or exhibited during the transaction on which the felony conviction was based; and 3) other people were put in actual danger.” Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Cantwell relies on the holding in Brister to support his contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the deadly weapon finding. In Brister, the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and the jury made an affirmative deadly weapon finding. Id. at 491. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that Brister used his car as a deadly weapon when the evidence in support of the third requirement showed only that he was intoxicated and crossed over into the oncoming traffic lane once but while no cars were present. Id. at 495. The Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the car was not used as a deadly weapon because no person other than the defendant was put in actual danger of death or serious bodily injury by the way he was driving. Id. However, the facts of this case are distinguishable.
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the deadly-weapon finding, the manner in which Cantwell drove his car—intentionally in the direction of a pedestrian crossing through a parking lot—put Jimenez in actual danger. Jimenez was not only put in actual danger; she was also seriously injured by Cantwell’s actions. See Nguyen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. ref’d) (concluding that evidence was sufficient to support deadly-weapon finding when it included evidence that defendant intentionally used his car in manner that caused actual injuries to victim). Specifically, Jimenez testified that she suffered a ruptured bladder and a compound fracture to her pelvis, and Heller testified that she saw a bone sticking out through Jimenez’s pants.
13
We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the deadly-weapon finding in this case. We overrule Cantwell’s final issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis Affirmed Filed: August 11, 2026 Do Not Publish