Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After loud music awakened a downstairs neighbor early one morning, the neighbor went to Dominique Sharice Roberts Wooten’s apartment and asked her to lower the volume. The neighbor testified that Wooten later ran toward her, performed a “jump kick,” pulled her hair, and struck her head several times, causing pain. Although photographs showed no visible injuries, the neighbor explained that the affected areas were covered by her hair.
Wooten gave a different account at her bench trial. She admitted pushing the neighbor hard enough to knock her down but denied punching her, pulling her hair, or kicking her. Wooten claimed that she acted defensively because the neighbor was walking toward her, yelling, and entering her personal space. The trial court found Wooten guilty of misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury, imposed a ninety-day jail sentence, suspended the sentence, and placed her on twelve months’ community supervision.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the rejection of Wooten’s self-defense claim. The trial court expressly found the complainant substantially more credible than Wooten, and the complainant’s account permitted a rational factfinder to conclude that Wooten pursued and attacked her even though she had neither physically nor verbally threatened Wooten. Any verbal provocation alone would not justify Wooten’s use of force.
The court also held that the complainant’s testimony that the hair pulling and blows caused pain was sufficient to establish bodily injury, even without visible marks or independent physical evidence. It further upheld the admission of questioning about Wooten’s refusal to speak with police because the silence occurred before arrest and before Miranda warnings and therefore was not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Wooten’s separate relevance and unfair-prejudice arguments were unpreserved because she had not raised them at trial.
Although it overruled all three appellate issues, the court modified the judgment to delete a $300 fine. Because the trial court had not orally pronounced that fine, its inclusion in the written judgment was a clerical error. The court affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A factfinder may reject self-defense based on credibility determinations, and verbal provocation alone does not justify force.
- A complainant’s testimony that an assault caused physical pain can establish bodily injury without photographs showing visible injuries.
- Pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence may be used to impeach a defendant who testifies without violating the Fifth Amendment.
- An appellate court may delete a fine appearing in the written judgment when the trial court did not orally pronounce it.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give trial judges acting as factfinders in bench trials, particularly when the verdict turns on conflicting testimony and witness credibility. It also confirms that even minor, nonvisible pain can satisfy Texas’s statutory definition of bodily injury.
For criminal practitioners, the decision underscores both the limited federal constitutional protection afforded to pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence and the need to state evidentiary objections specifically at trial. It also reinforces that the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a conflicting written judgment.