Mikele Sandle aka Michael Gooden v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 1993 » Mikele Sandle aka Michael Gooden v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-92-00291-CR

Case Date: 09/15/1993

Plaintiff: Mikele Sandle aka Michael Gooden

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

Preview:Mikele Sandle aka Michael Gooden v. The State of
Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos
County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-92-291-CR
MIKELE SANDLE AKA MICHAEL GOODEN,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court # 21,316-85
O P I N I O N
Mikele Sandle a/k/a Michael Gooden // was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
29.03 (Vernon Supp. 1993). The jury found that Gooden used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of
the offense and assessed punishment at fifteen years in prison and a $2,500 fine. Gooden's sole point of error is that the
evidence is insufficient to prove that the broken bottle alleged in the indictment is a deadly weapon.
Richard Castle, a sixteen-year-old high school student, testified that on the night of April 1, 1992, he was walking
home at approximately 10 p.m. At the corner of Bryan and Martin Luther King streets, he saw two men appear from
behind a shed. As Castle approached, one of the men broke a bottle against the curb. The same man grabbed Castle by
the arm, stuck the broken bottle to his throat, and told him to "get out of the jacket." Castle recognized the man with
the bottle as Gooden, because they had lived in the same apartment complex some years before. Castle's jacket was
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/878.html[8/20/2013 7:08:58 PM]

black with "Raiders" spelled out on the back. A third male appeared during the confrontation and told him to get out of
the jacket. As Castle took the jacket off, he was cut underneath his lower lip. He did not know exactly how he got cut.
Gooden then struck him on the top of his head, and one of the other assailants tried to stab him with what looked like a
knife. Castle required thirteen stitches. He testified that, during the assault, he feared the men were going to hurt him.
Castle could not testify as to what type of bottle was used in the assault.
Harlan Pope, a detective with the Bryan Police Department, testified as an expert. He testified that in his thirteen years
of service, he had seen cases where a bottle was used as a deadly weapon. On voir dire, Pope testified that he had not
seen the broken bottle used in the assault against Castle, had not talked to Castle, and could not form an opinion on the
use of the bottle as a deadly weapon. Pope testified, in response to a hypothetical question, that a broken bottle placed
at someone's throat would be capable of causing death and serious bodily injury. He testified that a tearing or
laceration to the throat area, which includes the jugular vein and the trachea, could easily cause death or serious bodily
injury.
The standard of review based on a sufficiency challenge is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 308, 318-19 (1979); Matson v. State, 819 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). A deadly weapon, as alleged in this case, is "anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury." See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 1.07(a)(11)(B) (Vernon 1974). Whether
a weapon is deadly is a question for the trier of fact. Griffin v. State, 198 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946). In
determining whether a weapon is deadly, all the facts of the case may be considered, including the shape and size of
the weapon, its sharpness, its capacity to produce death or serious bodily injury, the manner of its use, and any words
spoken by the accused. Blain v. State, 647 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). A weapon may be considered
deadly if it is displayed in a manner which conveys a threat, express or implied, that serious bodily injury or death will
result. Jackson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 723, 725 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd). When wielded as a
club, a broken bottle may be considered a deadly weapon. See Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 808 (Tex. Crim. App.
1987).
In Compton v. State, 759 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. App. Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd), the court found sufficient evidence of a
deadly weapon where the defendant brandished a broken beer bottle threatening to stab people while stealing beer and
candy from a convenience store. The bottle in Compton was a quart-sized beer bottle with the bottom broken out,
leaving a jagged edge. Id. at 504. The store clerk testified that he feared he would suffer serious bodily injury or death
because of the broken bottle. Id. A police officer testified that, according to his professional experience, a broken
bottle could inflict serious bodily injury or death. Id.
Gooden argues that, because the broken bottle was not introduced into evidence and because Pope's opinion was based
on a hypothetical question, the evidence is insufficient for a deadly weapon finding. We disagree. Although the victim
was unable to describe exactly what type of bottle was used in the assault, he was able to say that Gooden broke the
bottle and held that broken bottle against his throat an action capable of causing serious bodily injury or death,
according to Pope. A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the broken bottle was, in
the manner of its use or intended use, capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Matson, 819 S.W.2d at
843; Tex. Penal Code Ann. 1.07(a)(11)(B).
We overrule the point and affirm the judgment.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Thomas,
Justice Cummings, and
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/878.html[8/20/2013 7:08:58 PM]

Justice Vance
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 1993
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/878.html[8/20/2013 7:08:58 PM]

Download 878.pdf