NARIMAN RIHOO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed November 2, 2006.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00364-CR
............................
NARIMAN RIHOO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F05-43958-MTX
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Wright, O'Neill, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        A jury convicted Nariman Rihoo of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment and a $1500 fine. In two issues, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
 
        Appellant, his wife, Helen Pourshahbzi, and their three children came to Richardson in 1998. In June 2005, appellant and his wife separated. After appellant left the apartment, Pourshahbzi moved with the children to a different apartment in the same complex and did not tell appellant where they were living. Approximately six weeks later, as Pourshahbzi talked to one of their daughters in the parking lot of the apartment complex, appellant stabbed her with a knife, causing multiple injuries.
        At trial, Pourshahbaz testified appellant moved out of their apartment on June 17, 2005. When she moved herself and the children to another apartment, she did not tell appellant or his family where they were living. On August 1, 2005, she finished her job at a nearby grocery store and arrived home at 5:30 p.m. As she took groceries out of her car, Pourshahbazi saw her daughter Jennifer leaving the parking lot and stopped to talk with her. Suddenly she saw appellant “coming very fast” on her right side. Appellant started stabbing her with a knife. Pourshahbazi testified appellant held the knife in his hand “with a brown paper lunch bag on it.” She only saw the blade of the knife. Pourshahbazi testified appellant stabbed her “many times everywhere,” she felt “burning” each time appellant stabbed her, and she believed she was going to die and worried about her children. When a man came and grabbed appellant, Pourshahbazi fell to the ground. She recalled hearing her son's voice and her daughter screaming, and that she told a policeman her husband had stabbed her. An ambulance transported Pourshahbazi to a hospital, where she underwent surgery. Pourshahbazi testified she sustained lacerations to her right kidney, liver, diaphragm, and stomach.
        Jennifer Rihoo testified she saw her mother taking groceries from her car. Jennifer parked her vehicle behind her mother's car and talked for a few minutes before going to work. Suddenly, appellant rushed towards them. Appellant grabbed Pourshahbazi and repeatedly stabbed her. Jennifer got out of her car and tried to stop appellant, but he pushed her away and continued stabbing Pourshahbazi. A neighbor came and restrained appellant until the police arrived. Jennifer testified she saw the blade of the knife, but the handle was covered with something. She described the knife's blade as “thin and long.”
        Ronald Rihoo testified that at about 5:30 p.m. on August 1, 2005, he told Jennifer goodbye when she left to go to work, then heard her screaming a few minutes later. When he walked out on the balcony and looked down, Ronald saw a “struggle” between his mother and father. Ronald testified he could tell in the distance that there was a weapon in appellant's hand, but did not know what. Ronald testified appellant was “crouched down” over his mother and appeared to be stabbing her. Ronald ran to his mother; a neighbor had already restrained appellant.
        Patcheley Ezigbo testified he had moved into the complex on the morning of August 1, 2005. His vehicle was parked next to Jennifer's vehicle, and they spoke to one another as she left the parking space then stopped to talk with Pourshahbazi. Ezigbo continued taking things out of his car and putting them on the ground. Ezigbo testified that by the time he had raised his head, he heard Jennifer screaming and saw a man stabbing Pourshahbazi. Ezigbo identified appellant as the man he saw stabbing Pourshahbazi. Ezigbo ran toward appellant, grabbed appellant's hands, and wrestled for the knife. Ezigbo saw Ronald run to Pourshahbazi; he was screaming “my father, my father.” Ezigbo testified he hit appellant's hand against the hood of a car and the knife fell to the ground. Ezigbo held appellant against the car until the police arrived. Ezigbo testified he saw the blade of the knife, but a “piece of paper” covered most of the handle. Ezigbo identified a knife recovered from the scene as the one he saw appellant use during the assault.
        Officer Phillip Casavant testified he arrived after another officer had already detained appellant. Casavant saw Pourshahbazi laying on the ground bleeding; she was “in and out” of consciousness. Casavant noticed cuts on appellant's fingers. Appellant appeared “eerily calm,” and at one point asked for a cigarette. Casavant testified he recovered a knife from the hood of a vehicle. The knife appeared to be “some kind of kitchen knife” with a plastic handle. Casavant testified a plastic handle is placed on one end of a knife to indicate “that it is a sharp instrument, so whoever handles the knife wouldn't cut themselves.” Casavant testified the knife recovered at the scene “is absolutely a deadly weapon.”
Applicable Law
 
        In reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188, 191-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury's verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Watson v. State, PD-469-05, 2006 WL 2956272 at *10-11.
        The State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Helen Pourshahbazi and used or exhibited a deadly weapon during commission of the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a)(1), 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006). A “deadly weapon” is anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See id. § 1.07(a)(17). The statutes cover conduct that threatens deadly force, even if the actor has no intention of actually using deadly force. McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
        A knife is not a deadly weapon per se, but can be found to be a deadly weapon based on the nature of its use or intended use. Id. at 502-03; Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Whether a particular knife is a deadly weapon depends upon the evidence. Thomas, 821 S.W.2d at 620. Factors to consider in determining whether a knife is a deadly weapon in its use or intended use include: (1) the size, shape, and sharpness of the knife, (2) the manner of its use or intended use, (3) the nature or existence of inflicted wounds, and (4) testimony about the knife's life- threatening capabilities. Id. at 619.
Discussion
 
        Appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that the knife was a deadly weapon. Appellant asserts Casavant was not qualified as an expert witness to give his opinion about the knife. The State responds that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to prove the knife used by appellant was a deadly weapon.
        The evidence shows the knife appellant used during the assault on Pourshahbazi was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in the manner of its use. Three witnesses testified appellant repeatedly stabbed Pourshahbazi with the knife. Pourshahbazi sustained numerous lacerations to her body, including injuries to her kidney, liver, diaphragm, and stomach. Casavant testified the knife used by appellant during the assault was a deadly weapon. The knife was recovered, and it was shown to the jury during the trial. The jury was able to see the knife's size, shape, and sharpness, resolved any conflicts in the testimony, and was free to believe or disbelieve the officer's testimony. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); see also Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9. Moreover, the State need not offer expert testimony to establish that a particular knife is a deadly weapon. See Revell v. State, 885 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd).
        Viewed under the proper standards, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Lane, 151 S.W.3d at 191-92; Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 7; Thomas, 821 S.W.2d at 620. We resolve appellant's issues against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060364f.u05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.