Darrell Ray Meador v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 249th District Court of Somervell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-260-CR

DARRELL RAY MEADOR,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 249th District Court

Somervell County, Texas

Trial Court # 199

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Darrell Ray Meador of aggravated assault, assessed punishment at 20 years and a $10,000 fine, and found that he used a deadly weapon to commit the offense. In two points Meador contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and also insufficient to support the jury's finding that he did not act in self-defense. We affirm.

On July 31, 1993, several people were at an area in Somervell County called Low Water Bridge. Meador and Gordon Chaney were among those present. At one point in the evening, Chaney made a comment that he claims was not directed at anyone in particular but that David Courtney apparently assumed was directed at him. Courtney and Meador approached Chaney and hit him in the nose, but they later apologized to Chaney.

Scooter Locker asked Meador to leave Chaney alone. Meador walked about ten feet away from Locker, turned around, pulled out a knife, ran up to Chaney, and stabbed him three times in the back.

In his first point, Meador argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all the evidence that introduced by the state and the defense in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1301, 111 S. Ct. 2912, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1026 (1991). The testimony of the witnesses clearly established that Meador stabbed Chaney three times in the back; the medical testimony confirmed that the injuries were serious bodily injuries and that he used a deadly weapon. Thus, the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Meador committed aggravated assault. We overrule point one.

In his second point, Meador contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that he did not act in self-defense. The use of force against another is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 9.31 (Vernon 1974). There is no evidence in the record of any provocation by Chaney other than verbal provocation. Thus, because there is no evidence that Meador stabbed Chaney in self-defense, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that he did not act in self-defense. We overrule point two and affirm the judgment.

BOB L. THOMAS

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 25, 1994

Do not publish