Larry Donnell Bryant v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-99-00138-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 18, 2001; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Larry Donnell Bryant was convicted of assaulting a public servant after he attempted to evade arrest by rushing at a police officer, causing a struggle that resulted in injuries to the officer. Bryant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, arguing that the State failed to demonstrate that he caused bodily injury to the officer while the officer was lawfully performing his duties.

Under Texas law, assaulting a public servant requires intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct that causes bodily injury to a known public servant engaged in official duties. The definition of "bodily injury" includes physical pain or any impairment of physical condition. Bryant does not dispute his attempt to escape arrest but denies responsibility for the officer's injuries during the altercation.

The facts reveal that Officers Ralph Nix and Mark Mitzel were investigating a stolen vehicle and, upon locating it, approached a motel room occupied by Bryant and a woman with outstanding warrants. After arresting the woman, Officer Nix confronted Bryant, who falsely identified himself. During the incident, Bryant rushed at Officer Nix, resulting in physical contact that knocked Nix backward. The officer's immediate report indicated he attempted to detain Bryant, which may have led to Bryant's shirt being torn in the process. Following this, Bryant fled the scene, pursued by the officers.

Larry Bryant was arrested after admitting to Officer Nix that he provided a false name due to outstanding warrants. During the arrest, Officer Nix sustained injuries to two fingers on his left hand, which he noted in his offense report as occurring while attempting to detain Bryant. However, he did not specify that the injury resulted from Bryant rushing him, despite testifying that his fingers were jammed and swollen. Nix experienced pain and lost the use of his fingers for three to four days without seeking medical attention, with bruising persisting for several months. Officer Mitzel confirmed Nix's testimony regarding the hand injuries, while Nix also reported pain from a blow to the chest but did not document this in his report. Nix believed Bryant did not intend to injure his fingers but thought Bryant aimed to push him aside.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the court starts with a presumption of legal adequacy and examines whether the evidence strongly contradicts the jury's determination. The jury holds the discretion to assess witness credibility, and conflicting testimony, such as Nix's differing accounts of how his injury occurred, can impact their decision. The case references a precedent where a police officer's testimony about pain, despite no visible injury or medical treatment, was deemed sufficient for a jury to find that the appellant caused bodily harm to a public servant.

Evidence supports the jury's conclusion that Bryant caused bodily injury to Officer Nix, as Officer Nix testified to experiencing physical pain, swelling, and soreness from Bryant's reckless actions during an attempted escape from arrest. Consequently, Bryant's first issue is overruled.

Regarding Bryant's second issue, he argues that Section 22.01(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code is unconstitutionally vague, claiming it grants excessive discretion to police officers in determining what constitutes bodily injury based on subjective complaints of pain during arrests. Section 22.01(b)(1) states that simple assault against a public servant is a third-degree felony if committed while the public servant is performing official duties. This challenge incorporates definitions from Sections 22.01(a)(1) and 1.07(a)(8), which describe assault by causing bodily injury and define bodily injury as physical pain or impairment.

Typically, constitutional claims must be raised at the trial court level; however, exceptions exist for issues related to the constitutionality of the statute on which a conviction is based. Although Bryant did not raise the constitutional issue at trial, the court will treat it as a facial challenge, suggesting that the term 'bodily injury' is too vague for constitutional application.

For a successful vagueness challenge, the challenger must demonstrate standing by showing actual or threatened injury under the statute and prove that the statute is vague in all its applications. The court starts with a presumption of constitutionality, placing the burden of proof on the challenger. The statute must provide clear notice to individuals regarding prohibited conduct and establish explicit standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement by law enforcement.

To establish that a statute is unconstitutionally vague, a challenge must demonstrate that there are no circumstances under which the statute could be valid, referencing Santikos v. State and United States v. Salerno. Bryant claims harm from the statute, asserting that he is ensnared by a broad legislative "net" that grants excessive discretion to law enforcement, resulting in his conviction for a third-degree felony rather than a misdemeanor based on a police officer's claim of pain.

Bryant argues that Penal Code 22.01(b)(1) lacks clarity regarding the term "pain," which he believes is too subjective. However, Texas courts have addressed the vagueness of related terms, affirming in Ramirez v. State that the definition of "bodily injury" is sufficiently clear and not constitutionally vague. The court noted that terms such as "physical pain," "illness," and "impairment of physical condition" have common meanings and are not ambiguous enough to confuse law enforcement or ordinary citizens. Consequently, the court concludes that Bryant could understand the statute and its application, leading to the rejection of his vagueness argument. Both of Bryant’s issues were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.