Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-26-2020
Case Style:
Teanna Danielle San Nicolas v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 04-19-00756-CR
Judge: Rebeca C. Martinez
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrew Warthen
Joe D. Gonzales
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
San Antonio, Texas - Criminal Defense Law Aggravated Kidnapping charge.
San Nicolas was indicted on one count of aggravated kidnapping. The indictment alleges
that San Nicolas kidnapped Desiree Urdiales and that she used and exhibited a deadly weapon—
04-19-00756-CR
- 2 -
scissors—while doing so. San Nicolas pleaded not guilty. At trial, Deputy Cruz Reyna testified
that on the night in question, he responded to calls regarding a disturbance and a welfare check at
a house. When Deputy Reyna arrived at the scene, he knocked on the door and heard movement
inside the house, but no one responded. He then heard a cry for help and attempted to make a
forced entry, but was unable to do so.
Deputy Sergio Gonzalez testified that he and Deputy Reuben Patlan arrived at the scene,
breached the back door, and entered the house. Upon entrance, the deputies saw San Nicolas and
Desiree Urdiales standing at the top of the staircase. Deputy Gonzalez testified that San Nicolas
was standing on the left side of the staircase with scissors in her hand, pointing towards Urdiales
on her right. The deputies ordered San Nicolas to drop the scissors. She complied and came down
the stairs. The deputies then handcuffed her. According to Deputy Gonzalez, upon inspection of
the scene, the deputies also found a machete, a knife, and broken zip ties on the ground and attached
to a chair.
Urdiales testified she had been detained at that residence for several days by San Nicolas,
Mercedes Salazar, and James Cerda. On the night the deputies discovered Urdiales, San Nicolas
had been tasked to watch Urdiales while Salazar was gone. Urdiales was tied to a chair with zip
ties and, at some point, San Nicolas used a pair of scissors to release one of her hands from the
chair. San Nicolas fell asleep and woke up to discover Urdiales free from the chair and on the
phone. Urdiales testified that San Nicolas then began to struggle with her. San Nicolas had a knife
in her hand but dropped it during the struggle. The police then began banging on the door of the
residence. Urdiales testified that San Nicolas then yelled for help and tried to run down the stairs
but San Nicolas picked up a pair of scissors and used them to prevent Urdiales from descending.
Pictures of the scissors, knife, machete, zip ties, and chair were admitted into evidence at
trial. The jury ultimately found San Nicolas guilty of aggravated kidnapping and the trial court
04-19-00756-CR
- 3 -
sentenced her to 17 years’ confinement. This appeal followed. San Nicolas argues the evidence
is legally insufficient to show that the scissors were a deadly weapon and, therefore, does not
support the jury’s finding that she committed aggravated kidnapping.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a complaint based on legal insufficiency, we must determine whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Nowlin v. State, 473 S.W.3d 312, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Caballero
v. State, 292 S.W.3d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d). We view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the jury’s guilty verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences from
the evidence in its favor. Tate v. State, 500 S.W.3d 410, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). “Because
the jury is the sole judge of witness credibility and determines the weight to be given to testimony,”
we must defer to its determinations. Hines v. State, 383 S.W.3d 615, 623 (Tex. App—San Antonio
2012, pet. ref’d). “If any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.” Hernandez v. State, 198
S.W.3d 257, 260 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. ref’d).
APPLICABLE LAW
A person commits kidnapping “if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.”
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.03(a). He commits aggravated kidnapping if, inter alia, he “exhibits
a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.” Id. § 20.04(b). The Texas Penal Code
defines “deadly weapon” as, inter alia, “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Id. § 1.07(a)(17)(B).
Scissors are not a deadly weapon per se. See Dominique v. State, 598 S.W.2d 285, 286
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (analyzing whether sufficient evidence supported the finding
that scissors constituted a deadly weapon). However, the State can establish that scissors are a
04-19-00756-CR
- 4 -
deadly weapon by showing that the scissors, “in the manner of [their] use or intended use, was
capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.” See Hester v. State, 909 S.W.2d 174, 179 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no writ). A weapon need not wound a person to qualify as a deadly weapon.
Denham v. State, 574 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We consider the appellant’s
verbal threats, the distance between the appellant and the victim, and the witnesses’ descriptions
of the weapon in determining whether the appellant intended to use the instrument as a deadly
weapon. See Brown v. State, 716 S.W.2d 939, 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Manner of use is the
most important criterion. Dominique, 598 S.W.2d at 286. It is sufficient if the weapon is capable
of causing death or serious bodily injury and is displayed in a manner conveying an express or
implied threat that serious bodily injury or death will result if the aggressor is not satisfied. Lockett
v. State, 874 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, pet. ref’d).
APPLICATION
On appeal, San Nicolas does not dispute that the evidence supports a finding that she
committed kidnapping and that she displayed scissors during the kidnapping. She contends,
however, that the evidence is legally insufficient to show that the scissors were a deadly weapon,
as required to support her aggravated kidnapping conviction.
We disagree. Here, the evidence in the record supports a finding that San Nicolas intended
to use the scissors in a threatening manner, which makes the scissors a “deadly weapon.” See
Dominique, 598 S.W.2d at 286 (holding appellant’s placement of scissors on the victim’s neck
accompanied by a threat to kill and slashing motions was sufficient evidence “to sustain a finding
that the scissors, in the manner of their intended use, constituted a deadly weapon”). Here, the
evidence in the record shows that San Nicolas used the scissors to prevent Urdiales from escaping
when Urdiales yelled for help once the deputies arrived at the residence. Urdiales testified that
she was physically intimidated by San Nicolas and that as she was trying to go down the stairs,
04-19-00756-CR
- 5 -
San Nicolas struggled with her and “tried to stop [her] from going down the stairs by holding [her]
at the top with the scissors.” San Nicolas argues there is no evidence that the manner in which she
used or intended to use the scissors could cause death or serious bodily injury because she
previously used the scissors to partially free Urdiales from the chair to which she was zip tied.
However, as the evidence shows, San Nicolas later used the scissors to threaten Urdiales and to
prevent her from coming down the stairs once the deputies arrived. We hold the evidence is
sufficient to establish that the scissors were a “deadly weapon.” See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§§ 1.07(a)(17)(B), 20.04(b); Dominique, 598 S.W.2d at 286; see also Ruiz v. State, No. 13-99-
179-CR, 2001 WL 1554212, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 29, 2001, no pet.) (not
designated for publication) (scissors used “in a threatening, stabbing manner” constituted a deadly
weapon); Arriaga v. State, No. 05-95-01327-CR, 1997 WL 401943, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas July
17, 1997, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (scissors pointed at and used to
stab a victim constituted a deadly weapon); Green v. State, 705 S.W.2d 403, 403–04 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 1986, no writ) (scissors held to a victim’s throat constituted a deadly weapon).
Outcome: We overrule San Nicolas’s sufficiency complaint and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: