Nick N.Feizy v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-14-00230-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 14, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case Nick Feizy v. The State of Texas, identified as No. 06-14-00230-CR, the State's brief outlines the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding the appellant's conduct leading to the victim's bodily injury. The appellant, Nick Feizy, was charged with assault causing bodily injury to a family member, L.F., under Texas Penal Code § 22.01. The jury found him guilty, and he received a sentence of 180 days in jail, which was suspended for 12 months.

The State asserts that the evidence presented, particularly L.F.'s 911 call and testimonies from responding officers, supports the claim that Feizy caused bodily injury. The State's argument does not seek oral argument and emphasizes that the appellant's claims overlook critical evidence demonstrating his culpability.

The narrative recounts an incident where L.F. returned home to find Feizy asleep on the couch and later observed his intoxication, which she indicated was a common occurrence. Tension escalated when Feizy returned home with their son and expressed anger towards L.F. for not preparing dinner, leading to the domestic altercation that resulted in the charges against him. The State's brief includes a detailed table of contents, an index of authorities referencing relevant statutes and case law, and sections addressing the sufficiency of evidence and the applicable legal standards.

Appellant reacted aggressively when their son expressed a desire to see his mother, slamming the bathroom door multiple times. L.F. eventually entered the bathroom to bathe their son, during which Appellant verbally abused her and physically assaulted her by pinching her and using a dental tool to inflict pain. Despite his playful demeanor with their son, Appellant simultaneously harmed L.F. and trapped her in the bathroom. L.F. managed to call 911, reporting that Appellant had hurt her and was preventing her from leaving. Although she indicated that her injuries did not require medical attention, she described feeling scared and reported specific threats made by Appellant. In a separate call, Appellant downplayed the situation, suggesting L.F. had mental health issues and claiming there was no reason for her to call 911. When police arrived, Appellant initially denied any physical altercation but later suggested L.F. had been the aggressor while also mentioning her self-inflicted injuries. Officers noted L.F. was visibly upset and identified multiple marks on her body, which they determined were consistent with physical abuse. Appellant displayed signs of having consumed alcohol.

Testimony revealed that the victim, L.F., had visible injuries including red marks and scratches on her back and neck, which she described as painful. These injuries corresponded with her account of being pinched by the Appellant, corroborated by photographs taken by law enforcement. L.F. did not seek medical attention, believing her injuries would heal naturally, and denied having any mental disorders aside from a past eating disorder noted on a counselor’s intake form. L.F. had been contemplating divorce since September 2013 due to ongoing physical harm from the Appellant, expressing concerns for her children's safety, though she still hoped to reconcile. The divorce case, ongoing at the time of trial, involved her seeking exclusive custody of the children. An attorney testified that a finding of family violence could impact custody arrangements. Although L.F. claimed to have been diagnosed with battered woman's syndrome, the Appellant's attorney suggested that the diagnosis was not definitive. The Appellant provided a contrasting narrative, portraying L.F. as the aggressor during the November incident, alleging she was yelling and cursing, while he attempted to care for their children.

Appellant claimed that L.F. pinched him three times, resulting in a bruise on his upper arm, and provided photographic evidence of the injury. He acknowledged his larger size compared to L.F. but noted her strength from weightlifting. Appellant denied the presence of dental tools at home and explained the smell of alcohol on his breath as a result of having a glass of wine while preparing dinner. He asserted that L.F. voluntarily isolated herself with their child in a small bathroom, where she allegedly hit her back against the door frame while backing out. Appellant suggested that marks on L.F.’s neck could be explained by their child pushing off her neck. He did not inform the police about L.F.'s actions out of concern for her wellbeing and explicitly stated he did not want to press charges against her. During cross-examination, he admitted to a prior assault arrest and expressed surprise at L.F.’s presence at his home after a prior incident. The jury found Appellant guilty of assaulting L.F. The State argued that there was sufficient evidence, including L.F.'s 911 call and police testimony, to support the jury’s verdict that Appellant caused bodily injury to L.F. The standard of review for sufficiency of evidence requires viewing all evidence favorably towards the State, allowing for rational conclusions that establish the essential elements of the offense. The jury's role is to determine credibility, resolve conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented.

The reviewing court assesses all evidence in the record, regardless of its admissibility, to determine if it supports the verdict when viewed favorably. In this case, the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the Appellant caused bodily injury to his wife, as defined by Section 22.01 of the Texas Penal Code, which includes any intentional, knowing, or reckless infliction of physical pain or impairment. "Bodily injury" is broadly defined to include physical pain and minor injuries beyond mere offensive touching.

The evidence presented included testimony and visual documentation of red marks on the wife, L.F., resulting from the Appellant's actions, specifically pinching. L.F. testified to visible marks on her neck, corroborated by police officers who observed these marks and described them as scratches or abrasions. The jury also viewed photographs of the injuries. The Appellant himself acknowledged the presence of marks on L.F. before being informed by police and attempted to provide alternative explanations for their cause. However, the jury had substantial evidence to favor the State's assertion that Appellant’s pinching caused the injuries.

L.F. reported to a 911 operator and later to officers that the Appellant pinched her, and her testimony was supported by Officer Newton, who confirmed the marks corresponded to L.F.’s account. The nature of the marks was consistent with pinching, and L.F. testified they caused her pain, further supported by Officer Newton's observations that the injuries appeared painful. This comprehensive evidence established that Appellant caused L.F. bodily injury as defined under the relevant Texas law.

L.F. reported experiencing pain and abrasions, which were documented in an officer's report, supporting the jury’s guilty verdict. Previous case law demonstrates that physical injuries, even minor ones like reddish marks or scratches, can constitute sufficient evidence of "bodily injury." The appellant’s arguments, claiming a lack of evidence linking the injuries to his actions, overlook L.F.’s 911 call where she stated he pinched her neck. He also dismissed the credibility of L.F.'s claims regarding injuries to her side and back, relying solely on an officer’s characterization of these as "scratches," despite L.F.'s testimony that the pinching was forceful enough to leave marks. The jury had access to photographs and could interpret the evidence beyond the officer’s descriptions. Additionally, testimony from Officer Newton indicated that L.F.'s marks appeared painful and that she communicated her pain to him. The cumulative evidence allowed the jury to reasonably conclude that the injuries were physically painful, not merely emotional. The appellant’s reliance on other case law failed to account for all evidence favoring the jury's verdict. Consequently, the evidence is deemed sufficient, and the State requests affirmation of the appellant’s conviction and sentence. The document concludes with a certificate of service and compliance with court rules.