JOSEPH HENRY EADE, III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed December 20, 2006.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-01021-CR
............................
JOSEPH HENRY EADE, III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2005-1-1415
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Whittington, Moseley, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Moseley
        After a jury convicted Joseph Henry Eade, III of assault-family violence, the trial court assessed punishment at 365 days confinement in the county jail. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is factually insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
 
        On July 30, 2005, at about 3:30 p.m., Van Alstyne police officers Charles Milner and Debby Wolf were dispatched to appellant's apartment on a domestic disturbance call. Milner testified that when he arrived, he saw Teeka Eade, appellant's wife, pacing back and forth near the door of an apartment that was located downstairs from appellant's apartment. Teeka was upset, had been crying, and the left side of her face was red and swollen. Milner saw a small welt on the left side of Teeka's face. When questioned, Teeka told Milner that she and appellant had been fighting; appellant hit her on the left side of her face with his hand, causing her to fall against the sofa; appellant had been drinking, and Teeka ran to the downstairs apartment because she feared for her safety. Milner and other officers went upstairs and knocked on appellant's door, but appellant did not answer. Teeka said appellant had access to sleeping pills, and asked Milner to get inside the apartment. Milner tried unsuccessfully to get appellant to open the door. Eventually Milner called the fire department to open the door. Milner found appellant awake and lying in bed.
        Wolf testified she arrived on the scene a few seconds after Milner. Wolf saw that Teeka's left cheek was red, and there was a two-inch line on Teeka's cheek that was “slightly raised.” Teeka appeared to be distraught, talked very fast, and had been crying. Wolf testified Teeka said she and appellant had been in a verbal altercation and appellant struck her with his hand, causing her to fall back against the sofa. When Teeka went downstairs to a neighbor to call the police, appellant followed and told Teeka she needed to come back upstairs with him. Appellant went back upstairs when the neighbor did not open the door. Wolf testified that after appellant had been placed in her patrol car, she entered appellant's apartment and photographed Teeka's face and empty beer bottles in the kitchen trash. The photographs were shown to the jury. Wolf testified she left appellant alone in the patrol car with one officer standing near the vehicle. When Wolf went back to the patrol car, the odor of an alcoholic beverage filled the interior. Wolf further testified she never threatened Teeka with jail time if Teeka did not fill out a form that stated appellant hit her.
        Teeka testified she takes medications for severe depression and she lies all the time and fabricates things. Teeka denied that appellant hit her and testified she lied to police that day, she never told the officer that appellant had been drinking, and her face was red from standing outside in the heat. According to Teeka, two friends who helped appellant move the sofa into the apartment drank the beers. After she and appellant argued, Teeka went downstairs to the neighbor's apartment to use the telephone. Appellant followed Teeka and knocked “very lightly” on the neighbor's door. Appellant asked Teeka to come back upstairs, but Teeka did not want to go back upstairs because she was mad at appellant. The neighbor got scared and called the police. When the police arrived, Teeka talked to a male officer at the neighbor's apartment and a female officer in her apartment. Teeka admitted that at the scene, she told police appellant caused the redness and swelling to the left side of her face when he hit her. Teeka testified she believed she had to tell that “lie” to the police because the female officer said Teeka had to sign a report stating appellant hit her or Teeka would go to jail. Teeka later signed an affidavit of nonprosecution, claiming appellant did not hit her. During cross-examination and redirect, Teeka testified appellant was convicted in Collin County in November 2003 of assaulting her by breaking her nose and was placed on probation. Teeka also signed an affidavit of nonprosecution in that case, stating appellant was trying to hold the door shut so she could not leave and she opened the door onto her face and broke her nose.
        Donna Badgett testified she lived in the apartment downstairs from appellant and Teeka. On July 30, 2005, Teeka went to Badgett's apartment three different times. The first time occurred between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Teeka asked to use Badgett's telephone. Badgett testified Teeka was “very upset and crying,” and called her family to come get her, but they would not come. Teeka stayed in Badgett's apartment for about one hour, then went back upstairs. The second time occurred a short time later. Teeka again asked to use the phone. She appeared to be even more upset, but told Badgett she did not want to call the police because she did not want to get appellant into “more trouble.” Teeka stayed in Badgett's apartment “a while longer,” then went back upstairs. The third time Teeka came to Badgett's apartment, she was frantic. As soon as Badget locked the door behind Teeka, appellant started “banging” on Badgett's door. Badgett called the police. Badgett testified she told the police “there was a woman that had been abused” in her apartment, the woman's husband was “banging on my door,” and she needed someone because she was “scared for my grandkids.” Badgett testified she did not see any red spots, blood, or welps on Teeka's face, but she did not take the time to look at Teeka because appellant was banging on her door.
        Three witnesses testified for appellant. Appellant's sister Lisa Cain testified she saw appellant and Teeka on July 31, 2005, one day after the alleged assault. Cain did not see any red marks, bruising, or swelling on Teeka's face. Cain testified Teeka said “nothing had happened and it was all basically a lie.” Robin Byford, a former co-worker, testified that several months after the alleged assault, Teeka said she had lied to the police and now did not know how to fix it. Tracy Parrish, Byford's girlfriend, testified Teeka told Parrish that she was a “habitual liar” and had “ruined appellant's life by her lies and deception.”
        Appellant did not testify at the trial.
Applicable Law
 
        In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in a neutral light to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Watson v. State, No. PD-469-05, 2006 WL 2956272, *7 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2006); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The fact finder is the exclusive judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.).
        To obtain a conviction for assault-family violence, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Teeka Eade, a member of appellant's household. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
Discussion
 
        Appellant argues the evidence is factually insufficient because Teeka testified appellant did not hit her and that her face was red from being outside in the sun. Appellant asserts Teeka was not credible because she admitted she lied, an officer made her say appellant hit her, and other witnesses testified Teeka lied about the indicent. The State responds that the evidence is factually sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction.
        There was conflicting evidence. Both Milner and Wolf testified to statements Teeka made to them when they responded. Teeka told the officers that appellant hit her and that he had been drinking. Milner and Wolf testified the injuries to Teeka's face were consistent with what she said had occurred, and they photographed Teeka's injuries. At trial, Teeka recanted her statements, claiming Wolf threatened to send her to jail if she did not sign a report accusing appellant of assault. It was the jury's function to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); see also Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 9. The jury is not only entitled to resolve conflicts, but may choose to disbelieve any recantation. See Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We may not substitute our own determination for that of the jury. Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 87-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Scott v. State, 934 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.). Therefore, the jury could have disbelieved Teeka's testimony that appellant did not cause bodily injury to her by striking her face with his hand.
        Viewed under the proper standard, we conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that appellant committed the offense of assault-family violence. See Watson, 2006
WL 2956272, *7; Watkins, 741 S.W.2d at 549 . We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
061021f.u05