PD-0514-24 09/11/2024
“Is the evidence sufficient to support a jury’s finding that a two- to three-inch pocketknife is a deadly weapon when it can rationally be determined that it was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury because Appellant used it to slice through the nylon strap of a bag within inches of Parks’ hand?”
Glover stole a cooler with other stolen items inside from Buc-ee’s, and when confronted by an employee outside the store, he pulled out a pocket knife. As they struggled over the cooler, the employee warned Glover that he’d “f*ck” him up. Glover kept the knife close to him, told the employee, “Come on,” and then used the knife to cut the cooler’s strap. The employee let go of the cooler. Glover was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
On appeal, Glover challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the deadly weapon finding. The court of appeals agreed, stating:
there is no evidence [Glover] hurt anyone, threatened anyone, slashed at anyone, or brandished his pocketknife in a threatening manner towards anyone . . . Instead, [Glover] kept the knife close to himself, cut the strap on a cooler so that [the employee] could no longer hold onto it, and, simply said: (1) “Just let me go”; (2) “Let me have it”; and (3) “Come on, . . . .”
The court also stated that the employee’s testimony that he believed Glover would harm him with the knife was uncorroborated. Therefore, the court held that Glover did not display the knife in a manner that established his intent to cause death or serious bodily injury (SBI). The court struck the deadly weapon finding.
The State argues that the court of appeals erred. Glover used the knife within inches of the employee’s hand when he cut the cooler’s strap, and his actual use does not preclude a finding that he used it in a manner that was capable of causing death or SBI. Further, two officers testified a knife can be a deadly weapon. Looking at the totality of the interaction, the State asserts, “[Glover’s] willingness to swing the knife within inches of [the employee’s] hand and his continued ‘brandishing’ of the knife, accompanied with his statement . . . ‘Come on,’ demonstrates [Glover’s] intent to use the pocket knife as [a] threat to finally obtain possession of his stolen merchandise.”
