Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialwillprobation

appealtrialmotionprobationappellant

Related Cases

Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172

Facts

Jesse Garrett, Jr. was on probation for burglary when allegations arose that he threatened multiple individuals with his Doberman pinscher, Tiny. On July 17, 1980, Garrett allegedly threatened Ronald Hudson, M.H. Williams, James Blaylock, and his father, Jesse Garrett, Sr., with imminent bodily injury by threatening to sic Tiny on them. The trial court found that Garrett's actions constituted a violation of his probation conditions, leading to the revocation of his probation.

The State's motion to revoke alleged that appellant had violated condition (a) of his probation, that is, he shall 'Commit no offense against the laws of Texas or any other State or the United States, or any Governmental entity,' in that: 1a. On or about the 17th day of July, 1980, in Potter County, Texas, Jesse Garrett, Jr., did then and there knowingly and intentionally threaten Ronald Hudson with imminent bodily injury by threatening to sic a doberman pinscher dog on the said Ronald Hudson.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking Jesse Garrett, Jr.'s probation based on the evidence presented?

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the probation is the only issue presented in this appeal.

Rule

Under Texas law, a person commits an assault if he intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, which can be established without physical contact.

A person commits an offense if he: (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including his spouse.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including testimonies from police officers and witnesses, which indicated that Garrett had indeed threatened the complaining witnesses by using his dog in a manner that created a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily injury. The court noted that the definition of assault under Texas law does not require physical contact, and the threatening gestures made by Garrett with Tiny were sufficient to support the revocation of his probation.

Here, the State alleged that appellant 'knowingly and intentionally threaten(ed)' the named complaining witnesses 'with imminent bodily injury by threatening to sic a doberman pinscher dog on (them).'

Conclusion

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Garrett's probation, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the allegations of assault.

We hold today that an assault, pursuant to Sec. 22.01(a)(2), may be accomplished through the use of an animate object, such as a dog like Tiny.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Garrett had committed an assault by threatening the complaining witnesses with his dog.

The trial court found against appellant on all of the allegations and ordered the probation revoked.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Gollehon v. State, 296 Mont. 6, 986 P.2d 395, 1999 MT 210

Grant v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 680, 292 S.E.2d 348

Com. v. Brugmann, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 373, 433 N.E.2d 457

U.S. v. Espinosa-Cerpa, 630 F.2d 328

Davis v. Rex, 876 So.2d 609, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1452