Background
Harlingen police officers Marian Hernandez and Jacob Chavez responded to a domestic-disturbance call at a residence where Fuentes was present. During the encounter, Fuentes challenged the officers’ presence, repeatedly moved toward them, became increasingly agitated, and made statements including, “If I say you dead, you dead.”
After Chavez tried to conceal a kitchen knife beneath a microwave, Fuentes retrieved it while continuing his hostile statements. The officers drew their weapons and later testified that they believed Fuentes might attack them. Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Fuentes of two counts of aggravated assault on a public servant and imposed concurrent eight-year prison sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support both convictions. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Fuentes’s escalating hostility, repeated advances toward the officers, verbal threats, retrieval of the knife, and the officers’ testimony that they feared an imminent attack permitted a rational factfinder to find that he intentionally or knowingly threatened them while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon.
The court rejected Fuentes’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because he did not point the knife at either officer and merely picked it up. Aggravated assault by threat does not require the defendant to point the deadly weapon at the complainant; a threat may be communicated through words, actions, or conduct. The uniformed officers were responding to a domestic-disturbance call, also supporting the finding that Fuentes knew they were public servants lawfully performing official duties. The court affirmed the judgments.
Key Takeaways
- Aggravated assault by threat does not require proof that the defendant pointed the deadly weapon at the complainant.
- Words and conduct may be considered together in deciding whether a defendant threatened imminent bodily injury.
- The escalating encounter, Fuentes’s statements, his retrieval of the knife, and the officers’ testimony provided legally sufficient evidence for both convictions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Texas courts evaluate an alleged assaultive threat in its full context rather than isolating the defendant’s handling of a weapon. A factfinder may infer a threat of imminent bodily injury from the combined force of hostile statements, aggressive conduct, access to a deadly weapon, and the complainants’ perception of the encounter.