Bailey v. State
46 S.W.3d 487, 2001 WL 567958 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An object that is not inherently a deadly weapon can be found to be a deadly weapon if, in the manner of its use or intended use, it is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The determination does not require that serious bodily injury actually occurred, but focuses on the object's potential for harm based on the circumstances of its use.
Facts:
- On March 25, 1998, Ray Anthony Bailey forced his estranged wife, Cassandra Bailey, into a car and took her to a field.
- At the field, Bailey stood over Cassandra, hit her in the face, kicked her in the side, and poured beer on her.
- Bailey threatened her, stating, "After tonight you are not going to play with me anymore."
- He then picked up a wooden board and repeatedly struck Cassandra on her ribs and left side as she tried to shield herself.
- The first board broke from the force of the impacts, at which point Bailey picked up a second board and continued to hit her.
- As a result of the attack, Cassandra suffered multiple bruises, contusions, and soft-tissue injuries that required emergency room treatment and the use of crutches.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray Anthony Bailey was convicted by a jury in a Texas trial court of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- The trial court sentenced Bailey to thirty years in prison.
- Bailey, as appellant, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the deadly weapon finding.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, modifying the judgment to the lesser offense of assault and remanding for a new punishment hearing.
- The State, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of a new precedent, McCain v. State.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally sufficient to support a jury's finding that wooden boards were deadly weapons when they were used to repeatedly strike a person, even though they did not cause life-threatening or serious bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dorsey
Yes, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding that the boards were deadly weapons. An object qualifies as a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, not whether it actually causes such injury. The court's analysis focuses on the object's capability for harm, not the resulting injury. Here, Bailey's threats, the violent manner in which he repeatedly struck Cassandra with enough force to break one board, and expert testimony that a large piece of wood could cause death given the right force and location, all support the conclusion that Bailey intended to use the boards in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, a rational jury could find the boards were deadly weapons under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for classifying an ordinary object as a 'deadly weapon' in Texas. It emphasizes that the focus is on the object's potential for causing serious harm ('capability') and the defendant's intended manner of use, rather than the actual outcome or the defendant's specific intent to kill. This decision lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in aggravated assault cases, allowing a deadly weapon finding to stand even without the weapon in evidence or proof of serious injury, based on circumstantial evidence like threats, the violence of the attack, and testimony about the object's potential for harm.
