Blea v. Texas (original by judge alcala)
Annotate this CaseThe State appealed for discretionary review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in reversing appellant Juan Blea's conviction for first-degree aggravated assault of a family member against his then-girlfriend, Justina Fassett. The appellate court determined that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the element of "serious bodily injury." The State maintained that the court of appeals should have examined the injuries as they were inflicted by appellant, rather than assessing the injuries in their improved or ameliorated condition after medical treatment. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State: the evidence showed that appellant’s actions lacerated Fassett’s liver and collapsed her lung; that Fassett was taken to the hospital due to her trouble breathing; that she was hospitalized for four days; that her lung injury required a tube to permit breathing; and in light of the testimony describing her risk of death from the type of injuries that she sustained, the jury could have rationally inferred that Fassett’s injuries caused her a substantial risk of death. Concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient, the Court reversed the court of appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s judgment against appellant.
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.