The jury, as the exclusive judge of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, was entitled to believe all, some, or none of any witness s testimony.
Furthermore, Nicole s testimony that she heard complainant say You shouldn t have hit me conflicted with complainant s testimony. Oliver testified that complainant told him that she and appellant were in an argument over her talking to a neighbor, and that appellant punched her in the face and head several times.
Other times, distracted drivers, especially texting drivers, crash into motorcyclists on Liberty Road, Washington Avenue or another busy street. Gollihar v.
We know what it takes to win. Tamicka Yates, one of complainant s sisters, testified that she was on the phone with complainant and that complainant sounded angry and upset.
Appellant contends that, after Eckert corrected his testimony, there was no conflict in the evidence and there was no evidence that appellant intentionally and knowingly caused complainant s injury. The officers testified at trial that, when appellant answered the door, he appeared agitated and sweaty, as if he had been involved in some sort of physical activity.
Tamicka testified that, during a telephone call, she heard complainant telling appellant to stop and to leave her alone. That's why we're passionate about defending the rights of injured motorcyclists in Houston. The jury may believe all, some, or none of any witness s testimony.
Appellant, Mallory Glenn Livingston, was charged by information with assault of a family member, a Class A misdemeanor. Complainant said that appellant had the receiver of the phone in his hand and that, when she pulled the receiver by the cord, he let go and the phone snapped back and hit her in the face. State, 732 S. Sims v. She stated that she was lying on the bed, watching television, and was not talking to her sister on the telephone when police arrived.
When reviewing the factual sufficiency, the court must view all the evidence in a neutral light and may set aside the verdict only if the evidence is so weak that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the contrary evidence is so strong that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof could not have been met.
State, 143 S.
Complainant s mother testified that she saw complainant on the evening of the attack, that she saw complainant s black eye, and that complainant would not say how she was injured. We affirm.
In this case, it is not true that [a]ll of the witnesses testified that complainant was struck with a telephone. And it's up to you to hold them accountable for their actions.
She stated that appellant hung up the phone.
We know the truth. That's because some people have a bias against all motorcyclists. She testified that complainant s left eye was messed up and that it was swollen and discolored.