Williams v. State

216 S.W.3d 44, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 557, 2007 WL 966979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 24, 2007
DocketNo. 10-06-00045-CR
StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.W.3d 44 (Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. State, 216 S.W.3d 44, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 557, 2007 WL 966979 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

DISSENTING OPINION

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice.

This is a really simple case. The question, the legal question, is whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the defendant guilty. Because the victim, the wife, recanted the statement she gave police the night of the incident, and said she could not remember if the defendant, her husband, pulled her braids and that having her braids pulled out did not hurt, we are left with no direct evidence.1 But based upon the evidence, even the evidence as summarized by the majority, any person that has even a modest amount of common sense can reasonably conclude from the circumstantial evidence presented that during the course of an argument with his wife, over why he had another woman in his den when his wife came home, the defendant grabbed the braids of his wife’s hair through the partially rolled-down car window and, in the terminology of my upbringing, he “snatched a bald spot” on her head as he forcibly removed three of her braids. Based upon common sense, common experience, the testimony of the officer that she was holding her head and that the spot was red on the night of the incident, and the photographs introduced into evidence, it would be hard for any reasonable person to conclude anything other than that the defendant pulled out the braids and that it hurt, regardless of what the victim’s other testimony was. See Eade v. State, No. 05-06-01021-CR, 2006 WL 3734972, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 10786 (Tex.App.-Dallas Dec. 20, 2006, no pet. h.) (“Therefore, the jury could have disbelieved Teeka’s testimony that appellant did not cause bodily injury to her by striking her face with his hand.”)

The circumstantial evidence in this case is more than sufficient for reasonable jurors to conclude that Mr. Williams was guilty of family violence.

APPENDIX

Q. What’s the first thing that you remember about March 23rd of 2005?
A. Coming home and arguing with my husband.
Q. Okay. When you said you came home, did you come home to 3113 Orchard Lane?
A. Yes, that’s home.
Q. What was your husband doing when you arrived?
A. Well, he had company. It was a female there.
Q. Where was your husband when you arrived?
A. Well, when you walk in, you know, it’s a big den there, so in the den.
Q. So your husband was in the den. Where was the female?
A. In the den.
Q. And what occurred?
A. I went off the chain. A female at my house. I don’t do females.
[46]*46Q. So you were angry with your husband?
A. Oh, I was angry.
Q. What did you do next?
A. Well, you know, after a few choice words and — and I’m pretty sure I was a little mad, a little crazy.
Q. And was Mr. Williams angry as well?
A. He’s trying to explain something to me and I don’t want to hear it.
Q. What was he trying to explain to you?
A. That — you know, who this is.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You don’t remember what your husband said to you regarding this other woman?
A. I don’t remember the argument. I was so upset until all of that went over my head. You know—

(R.R., Vol.3, p.72,1.3-P.73,1.10)

Q. Okay. And does this statement help refresh your recollection regarding how long you argued with the defendant?
A. Yeah. I think I argued about an hour and a half on here, but that might be stretching it a little bit.

(R.R., Vol.3, p.74,1.12-16)

Q. Was the female there during the hour and a half argument?
A. No.
Q. When you got in your car, what did you do next?
A. Probably just backed up and left.
Q. Okay. And when you left, where did you go?
A. I believe I went over to my mother’s house.

(R.R., Vol.3, p.76,1.13-19)

Q. Then where did you go?
A. Home.

(R.R., Vol.3, p.79,1.7-8)

Q. Okay. And then where did you— where did your car go next after you parked there?
A. After I parked there is when I, you know, leaving the driveway with Barry hanging on.
Q. Okay. So when you left your driveway, where did you go? What physical location did you go to?
A. I had threw my Camero in reverse and it went all the way back to the end of my driveway.

(R.R., Vol.3, p.81,1.3-10)

Q. Okay. When did you first see him after you had returned to the residence around 10:06 and remained in your car for a while?
A. Coming out of the back door we have a cement slab-ramp deal.
Q. What was your husband wearing when he came out the back door?
A. He had a robe. Probably, you know — probably some underwear and a robe. No shoes.
Q. Were you — where were you situated when he came out of the house?
A. I’m in the driveway.
Q. Okay. Are you in the car or out of the car?
A. I’m in the car.
Q. Is the — are the car doors open or shut?
A. The doors?
Q. Yes, ma’am.
A. They’re closed.
Q. So all four doors of the car were shut?
[47]*47A. Two doors for a Camero and both were closed. Yes.
Q. Okay. Two doors shut. Were the windows up or down?
A. Always on the passenger’s side up and I had a crack. That’s what I was doing when I was sitting out there. I was smoking a cigarette and I had a crack to, you know, get the smoke out.
Q. Okay. So during the time period that you were calming down, you were smoking a cigarette?
A. (Nodded head.)
Q. And the window was down. Can you show the jury, using your hand, approximately how far down your window was?
A. Just enough to get the smoke out. I’m in there smoking. A Camero is a small car, so about like so. (Indicating.)
Q. So about four or five inches?
A. Well, whatever that is. (Indicating.) A couple.
Q. When your husband came out, had you finished your cigarette?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 S.W.3d 44, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 557, 2007 WL 966979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-texapp-2007.