Aggravated Assault by Threat Sufficiency | Forrest v. State (2026)

James Forrest v. The State of Texas, 07-26-00184-CR, August 13, 2026.

On appeal from 211th District Court, Denton County, Texas

Synopsis

The Amarillo Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon where the complainant testified that Forrest pointed a firearm at him and threatened to kill him, and the physical evidence was consistent with that account. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court emphasized that credibility disputes, conflicting versions of events, and evidentiary inconsistencies remained for the jury to resolve, and that the offense was complete once the threat was made while the firearm was used or exhibited.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family law litigators, Forrest matters because assault-by-threat findings involving a firearm can materially affect protective-order litigation, temporary orders, conservatorship restrictions, possession schedules, supervised access, and exclusive-use determinations in divorce cases. The opinion is particularly useful where one party argues that the evidence is “too inconsistent” to support family-violence-related relief: Forrest reinforces that a threat accompanied by the display or pointing of a firearm may be enough, even when the parties give sharply different accounts and the forensic picture is incomplete. In custody and divorce litigation, that principle can be outcome-determinative when a court is assessing credibility, imminent danger, and the need for protective restraints around the home, children, or firearms access.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

James Forrest was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, with an affirmative family-violence finding, arising from an altercation with his adult son, Terry, who had been temporarily staying with him. According to Terry, the relationship was strained, an argument became physical, and Forrest threatened to kill him. Terry then tried to leave through the back door and walk toward his truck.

As Terry was leaving, he heard what he recognized as a gunshot, turned, and saw Forrest pointing a gun at him. Terry testified that he charged Forrest to disarm him, a struggle followed, and the weapon discharged while both men were holding it. Terry said the gun’s slide injured his hand. He ultimately got control of the firearm, left the property, and called 911, telling the operator that his father was shooting at him and had shot at him twice.

Law enforcement testimony supplied corroborating detail. A responding deputy described Terry as excited, scared, and upset. Investigators recovered the gun and found two shell casings matching it. A blanket hanging on a chain-link fence had a bullet hole. Officers also observed injuries on Terry—abrasions and red marks to the neck and bloody scrapes on his hand—consistent with his account. By contrast, an investigator did not observe injuries on Forrest consistent with Forrest’s claim that Terry had assaulted him. Forrest’s recorded interview offered a competing narrative: he claimed Terry took the gun from his back pocket, threatened him, and that only one shot was fired during the struggle. The jury rejected that version.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia to prove that Forrest intentionally or knowingly threatened Terry with imminent bodily injury while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon under Texas Penal Code §§ 22.01(a)(2) and 22.02(a)(2).
• Whether the trial court committed reversible jury-charge error by failing to include an instruction on a voluntary act under Texas Penal Code § 6.01(a).

Rules Applied

The court relied on the standard legal-sufficiency framework drawn from Jackson v. Virginia, Brooks v. State, Harrell v. State, and Dunham v. State. Under that framework, the reviewing court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reiterated that the jury is the sole judge of witness credibility and evidentiary weight, and appellate courts defer to the jury’s resolution of conflicting inferences.

On the substantive offense, the court applied Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2), incorporating assault by threat under § 22.01(a)(2). The State therefore had to prove that Forrest intentionally or knowingly threatened Terry with imminent bodily injury while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, here a firearm.

On the jury-charge issue, the court cited Texas Penal Code § 6.01(a) and authorities including Rogers v. State, Walters v. State, Miller v. State, Hamel v. State, Price v. State, Kirsch v. State, Arteaga v. State, Reeves v. State, and Wesbrook v. State. Those cases establish that voluntariness is a defensive issue requiring an instruction only when raised by the evidence, and that unpreserved charge complaints require a showing of egregious harm.

Application

The court’s sufficiency analysis was straightforward and strategically important. It did not allow the defense to reframe the case as one about unresolved ballistics details or the exact number of shots fired. Instead, the court focused on the elements actually charged: threat of imminent bodily injury plus use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. Terry testified that Forrest pointed the gun at him and threatened to kill him. That testimony alone directly addressed the core elements. The surrounding evidence then reinforced, rather than undermined, the complainant’s narrative: two shell casings matched Forrest’s gun, the bullet hole in the blanket suggested gunfire in the area Terry described, Terry’s injuries aligned with a struggle over the weapon, and Forrest’s own version was inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The court also treated credibility as belonging to the jury, not the appellate court. Forrest’s principal argument was that the physical evidence so contradicted Terry’s account that no rational factfinder could convict. The court rejected that premise because the supposed conflicts were not the kind that defeat legal sufficiency; they were classic jury questions. Once the jury was entitled to believe Terry’s testimony that Forrest pointed the firearm at him and threatened to kill him, the offense was complete. Whether one shot or two shots were fired mattered far less than the defense suggested, because aggravated assault by threat does not require a completed shooting or physical injury.

On the voluntary-act charge issue, the court similarly declined to let the defense reduce the case to the moment of discharge during the struggle. Even if one discharge occurred while both men were grappling for the gun, the evidence supported earlier voluntary conduct by Forrest—most notably pointing the gun at Terry. Under Rogers, criminal responsibility need only include a voluntary act, such as pulling, pointing, or otherwise exhibiting the weapon. Given the evidence of multiple shots and the testimony that Forrest pointed the firearm before the struggle, the court found no basis for a voluntariness instruction.

Holding

On legal sufficiency, the court held the evidence was sufficient to support aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon. The complainant’s testimony that Forrest pointed a gun at him and threatened to kill him, combined with physical evidence consistent with that account, permitted a rational jury to find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia. The court further held that disputes over the number of shots fired, inconsistencies between the parties’ stories, and competing credibility arguments were matters for the jury, not grounds for reversal.

On the jury-charge issue, the court held there was no reversible error in omitting a voluntary-act instruction under Penal Code § 6.01(a). The evidence did not raise the defensive issue in a manner requiring the instruction, particularly because the offense included Forrest’s voluntary act of pointing the firearm at Terry. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

Practical Application

For family law practitioners, Forrest is best understood as a proof-structure case. In protective-order hearings, SAPCR modification fights, divorce temporary-orders proceedings, and exclusive-possession disputes, lawyers often confront a record in which one side says, “He pointed a gun at me and threatened me,” while the other side insists the story is exaggerated, unsupported, or physically improbable. Forrest is a strong reminder that a factfinder may credit the complainant’s account where surrounding circumstances are generally consistent with it, even if some details are disputed or some forensic steps were never taken.

That has several practical consequences. First, when pleading and proving family violence, do not overcomplicate the presentation by making the entire case turn on every contested detail. If the operative event is a firearm-backed threat, the critical showing is imminent bodily injury threatened while the weapon was used or exhibited. Second, corroboration does not need to be perfect to be powerful. 911 calls, demeanor testimony, photographs, shell casings, damage to property, text messages sent immediately after the incident, and visible injuries can all help anchor the narrative. Third, for respondents, Forrest underscores the danger of relying too heavily on “inconsistency” rhetoric without building affirmative evidence that explains the physical record better than the opposing account does.

In custody litigation, the opinion is especially useful when arguing that a firearm-related threat is not merely historical misconduct but evidence relevant to present best-interest and safety determinations. A court considering supervised possession, firearm restrictions, exchange protocols, or geographic limitations may find Forrest persuasive in assessing whether a threat episode is sufficiently established despite conflicting testimony. In divorce cases involving exclusive use of the residence, temporary injunctions, or disproportionate possession arguments, the same logic applies: the threat itself, if believed, can carry substantial legal weight independent of whether the weapon was discharged or whether every forensic question was answered.

Checklists

Building a Firearm-Threat Family Violence Record

• Plead the threat event with specificity: who was threatened, what was said, what weapon was used or exhibited, and why the threat conveyed imminent bodily injury.
• Secure the 911 call, CAD logs, bodycam, dashcam, and dispatch notes immediately.
• Obtain photographs of injuries, property damage, shell casings, bullet strikes, or disturbed scene conditions.
• Preserve text messages, voicemails, and post-incident communications reflecting fear, apology, concealment, or admissions.
• Elicit demeanor testimony from responding officers or third parties who observed the complainant shortly after the event.
• Tie the physical evidence to the threat narrative, even if the record is not forensically complete.
• Emphasize that the offense or violent conduct is complete upon the threat while the firearm is used or exhibited; an actual shooting is not required.

Using Forrest in Protective Orders and Temporary Orders

• Argue that conflicting testimony does not preclude relief when the complainant’s account is corroborated in material respects.
• Frame the firearm display and death threat as evidence of imminent danger, not merely verbal hostility.
• Request targeted restrictions on firearms access, exchanges, communications, and proximity to the residence or children.
• Connect the proven threat to best-interest and safety findings in SAPCR or divorce temporary orders.
• Use immediate outcry evidence—especially 911 language—as contemporaneous corroboration of fear and urgency.
• Resist efforts to make the hearing devolve into collateral disputes over immaterial details if the key elements are otherwise shown.

Defending Against a Firearm-Threat Allegation

• Do not rely solely on generic impeachment; develop an affirmative explanation for the physical evidence.
• Test whether the alleged inconsistencies actually affect an element, or merely peripheral details.
• Evaluate whether recorded statements by your client create additional exposure if introduced.
• Address demeanor and post-incident conduct, including evasiveness, delayed cooperation, or inconsistent location claims.
• Consider whether independent witnesses, digital data, or scene evidence can corroborate your client’s version.
• If seeking a defensive instruction or analogous relief, make a clear request and preserve the record.
• Avoid centering the defense on whether a discharge was accidental if the evidence supports an earlier voluntary display or pointing of the weapon.

Preserving Error and Positioning Appeal

• Object specifically to omitted charge language and tender requested instructions in writing where appropriate.
• Distinguish sufficiency complaints from charge complaints; build both records separately.
• Identify whether the dispute concerns an element, a defensive issue, or merely witness credibility.
• Preserve arguments regarding evidentiary gaps, but recognize that gaps alone rarely defeat sufficiency if direct testimony proves the elements.
• In family-law-adjacent proceedings, make explicit findings requests where firearm threats bear on conservatorship, possession, or protective restraints.
• When appealing, frame the issue around the statutory elements actually required, not around surplus factual disputes.

Citation

James Forrest v. The State of Texas, No. 07-26-00184-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 13, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~1b8847b3-1512-4ade-b9a8-ce1b5a0b8693~~