Godson Olayiwola Akran v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued April 2, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00305-CR
———————————
GODSON OLAYIWOLA AKRAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 18-DCR-083804

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant Godson Olayiwola Akran of the first-degree

felony offense of murder and assessed his punishment at forty-five years in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Akran argues that the evidence
is legally insufficient to sustain his conviction because the evidence demonstrates

he acted in self-defense.

We affirm.

Background

In the early morning hours of August 16, 2018, Lola Briggs was at her home

in Fort Bend County, Texas with her three children and their nanny. Taofeek

Anifata (“Taofeek”)—a man with whom Briggs was in a relationship—was also at

Briggs’ home and getting ready to leave.1 At around 3 a.m., Akran rang Briggs’

doorbell and banged on her door. Akran was separated from Briggs—the mother of

his children—but they still maintained a physical relationship.

When Akran entered Briggs’ home and saw Taofeek, he and Taofeek began

to argue. Taofeek challenged Akran to a fight and the two men began fighting.

Akran grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed Taofeek with the knife. Paramedics

later declared Taofeek deceased at the scene.

Akran was charged with the felony offense of murder. He pled not guilty,

and the case proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, Akran argued he acted in self-

defense after Taofeek threw a chair at him.

Trial Proceedings

1
The State explained in its opening argument that Taofeek was involved in a
relationship with Briggs while married to someone else. Briggs was seeing both
Taofeek and Akran when the stabbing occurred. Akran was cheating on his live-in
girlfriend with Briggs.

2
After opening arguments, the jury listened to the two 911 calls—one made

by Briggs and one made by Akran. Afterward, fifteen witnesses testified for the

State. 2, 3

Lola Briggs

Briggs testified that she was single and had three children. Akran is the

father of her two youngest children. Akran saw the children and provided for them

financially when he could. Because Briggs travels for work, she hired a live-in

nanny to help with the children.

Briggs met Akran in 2012. The following year, she and Akran had a

wedding ceremony, although they never obtained a marriage certificate. Her

children with Akran were born in 2013 and 2016. Briggs and Akran separated in

2017. Although Briggs and Akran were both seeing other people, they were

working toward reuniting.

Briggs met Taofeek in 2002 or 2003. She had a relationship with him before

she met Akran. After Briggs and Akran separated in 2017, Briggs and Taofeek

renewed their relationship. Briggs testified that Taofeek, who was still married to

someone else, was her best friend and helping her financially. She testified that

after their separation, she and Akran still had a physical relationship.

2
The defense did not present any witnesses.
3
We only summarize the witness testimony that is pertinent to the self-defense
issue raised by Akran on appeal.

3
According to Briggs, by the time she got home from work on the evening of

August 15, 2018, the children were in bed. After the children went to bed, Taofeek

came over. At around 3 a.m. on August 16, she was getting ready for bed. Taofeek

was in the kitchen, getting something to eat, and planned to leave after. They heard

knocking and “beating” on the front door. She saw Akran at the door. He told her

to open the door and let him in so he could charge his phone. Briggs handed Akran

a charger and closed and locked the door. Akran then began to charge his phone

using an outlet outside Briggs’ house.

According to Briggs, she was surprised when Akran showed up at her house.

She and Taofeek began to argue about Akran being there. Taofeek, who was upset

about Akran’s arrival, left. As Briggs walked toward her bedroom, the doorbell

rang. It was Taofeek. She let him in and began to shut the door, but Akran came in

behind him. Akran told Briggs he was going to get his kids. He went upstairs,

woke them up, and brought them downstairs.4 Briggs and the nanny told Akran to

leave the children alone. According to Briggs, she asked Taofeek and Akran to

leave repeatedly.

Briggs testified that Akran told the nanny he was not trying to cause any

trouble, and that if he were a bad person, he would have done something to

Taofeek’s car, which was parked in front of the house. Taofeek told Akran that if

4
The nanny and the eldest child also went downstairs.

4
he touched his car, he would go to jail. According to Briggs, that is “when the rage

started.” There were words “being thrown.” Taofeek said derogatory things about

Akran’s mother.

Briggs told both men to leave. Akran and Taofeek were arguing and yelling

at each other. Briggs called her mother on the phone “when [she] felt like it was

getting out of hand and no one was listening” and put her on speaker. Briggs’

mother scolded the men. They both calmed down and remained calm until Briggs’

mother hung up. They then started arguing again and Taofeek was “basically

telling [Akran] to come . . . if he wants to fight.”

Briggs testified that Akran went to get a knife and then ran with the knife in

his hand toward Taofeek. She testified that Taofeek grabbed a chair and threw it at

Akran after he ran toward Taofeek with the knife. Briggs later testified that the

chair was thrown first. Briggs then testified that she did not know “exactly when

[Akran] got the knife.” She testified that the men were throwing punches and then

“all of the sudden . . . Taofeek [fell] to the floor.” She testified the fight lasted not

more than three minutes.

Akran “started trying to wake Taofeek up. [H]e was tapping him and he was,

like, he’s not dead. He’s not dead.” Then Akran “was trying to give Taofeek

water.” She and Akran each called 911.

5
After the police arrived, they took the children to Child Advocates of Fort

Bend to be interviewed.

Fayama Odoms

Fayama Odoms was hired in 2018 as the children’s live-in nanny. She left

Briggs’ employ four months after the stabbing and did not keep in touch with the

family.

According to Odoms, on August 16, 2018, Briggs came home with Taofeek

at around 7 or 8 p.m. Odoms went to bed at about 10 p.m. and was awoken by a

ringing doorbell at around 4 a.m. She went back to sleep but then heard a bang.

She heard Briggs asking Akran why he had come over without letting her know

first. Odoms testified that Akran routinely visited his children and Briggs would let

Odoms know ahead of time. Akran never showed up unannounced in the middle of

the night. According to Odoms, Akran stated he wanted to leave with his children

and Odoms told him not to. By this time, Odoms was downstairs with Briggs,

Taofeek, and Akran.

Odoms testified that Taofeek and Akran began to argue and yell at each

other, and Taofeek challenged Briggs to a fight. Akran opened a kitchen drawer,

took out a knife, and ran to Taofeek, who was sitting at the breakfast table.

According to Odoms, Taofeek stood when he saw Akran running toward him.

When he saw Akran running toward him, Taofeek “took up the chair, say he want

6
to fight, to—then he slip down, fell on the floor.” Odoms testified that Taofeek

“took [the chair] up” “[a]s he was going to fight with it.” According to Odoms,

Taofeek did not throw the chair at Akran. When Taofeek fell to the floor, Akran

stabbed him. Odoms testified that Taofeek did not hit Akran, run at Akran, or

throw anything at Akran before Akran got the knife. Odoms asked Akran why he

killed Taofeek. According to Odoms, Akran replied, “I don’t care. I’ll go to jail.”

Akran then left.

Ben5

Ben, who is Briggs’ eldest child, was nineteen when he testified. He was

thirteen when the stabbing occurred and his siblings were two and four years old.

At the time, he lived with his siblings, his mother, and the nanny. He testified that

Akran was a stepdad of sorts to him and treated him well. According to Ben, after

Briggs and Akran separated, it appeared they were still on friendly terms. Ben

testified that he knew Taofeek before he met Akran and that Taofeek also treated

him well.

According to Ben, on August 16, 2018, he was awoken in the middle of the

night by an argument between Taofeek and Akran. The argument may have lasted

about an hour. Ben testified that Briggs and the nanny asked Akran to leave. Akran

5
We use pseudonyms to protect the identity of “any person who was a minor at the
time the offense was committed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3), (b); see Ingerson v.
State, 559 S.W.3d 501, 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

7
said he wanted to take his children and leave, but Briggs and the nanny objected.

Ben testified that Taofeek asked Akran multiple times to fight but Taofeek, who

was bigger than Akran, never hit Akran or charged at him or knocked him down.

Ben initially testified that Taofeek threw the chair before Akran grabbed the

knife. But he later testified that Taofeek did not hit or throw anything at Akran

before Akran went toward him with the knife and that Taofeek did not point a

weapon at Akran before Akran approached him with the knife. According to Ben,

after Taofeek fell, Akran continued to punch Taofeek. Akran then got some water

to wake him up.

When Ben testified that he could not remember the details of the stabbing,

he listened, outside the jury’s presence, to a recorded statement he gave to Child

Advocates on the day of the stabbing. Ben then testified that in his statement,6 he

stated that Akran got a knife out of a kitchen drawer and charged at Taofeek and

punched toward Taofeek. Ben testified that in his statement, he stated that after

Akran charged Taofeek, Taofeek grabbed a chair and threw it toward Akran but

missed. After Taofeek fell, Akran continued to punch him.

Ben testified that according to his statement, Akran got the knife out of a

kitchen drawer while Taofeek was in the breakfast area. Akran swung at Taofeek

but missed. Taofeek threw the chair, but it did not hit Akran. They were fighting,
6
Although Ben’s statement was not played for the jury, after he listened to it
outside the jury’s presence, he was asked about the statement.

8
“like normal punches.” The knife was in Akran’s hand at the time. Then Taofeek

fell, and Akran was on the ground, still swinging at Taofeek.

Ben testified that after the stabbing, Akran used Ben’s phone to call 911.

After calling 911, Akran went outside and walked away. Ben told the police that

the knife used in the stabbing was in the kitchen drawer.

Samara Merrick

Samara Merrick dated Akran from 2017 through 2022. She testified that

Akran went out with his friends on August 15, 2018, and early on August 16, he

called her to pick him up at Briggs’ house. She found it strange that Akran was at

Briggs’ house because it was not a normal hour for him to be visiting his children.

On the way to pick him up, Merrick called Akran and asked what was going on.

He responded “that he th[ought] he killed someone.” He sounded “nervous” and

told her he called 911. He was panicking. According to Merrick, once she picked

him up, Akran told her he thought he killed someone after finding him in bed with

his “baby mama.”

Donald Hess

On the way to Briggs’ house in response to a possible stabbing, Officer

Donald Hess, a Fulshear police officer, became suspicious of Merrick’s speeding

car and he began to pursue it. After chasing the car for a half mile to a mile,

Merrick pulled over. According to Officer Hess, the passenger appeared to be

9
“either intoxicated or under some type of influence of something.” He testified that

the driver was cooperative. The passenger was evasive at first, then cooperative.

Police handcuffed the driver and the passenger of the car.7

Detective David Williams

Detective David Williams of the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office testified

that he was sent to Briggs’ house on August 16, 2018. He arrived and learned

Taofeek had been pronounced dead. He located the knife used in the stabbing in a

kitchen drawer when one of the children told him where to find it. The blade,

which was broken off, was recovered during Taofeek’s autopsy.

Detective Williams obtained statements from Briggs, Odoms, Ben, Merrick,

and Akran. He also searched two cell phones recovered at the scene. One belonged

to Briggs and the other to Ben. He also spoke with Merrick, who was cooperative

and not believed to have been involved with the crime. He spoke with Akran, who

had blood on his face, shirt, and pants. Akran did not appear to be injured.

Akran’s audio statement to Detective Williams was played for the jury.8

According to Detective Williams, Akran did not say during his statement that

Taofeek hit him or had a weapon. Akran said he had a knife in his hand because

Taofeek kept talking to him and made him angry. During the statement, Akran said

7
Merrick was not taken into custody.
8
The audio statement in the record was of poor quality and could not be understood
in its entirety.

10
he had a weapon in his hand before any mention of a chair, and he made it clear

that no force was used against him before he got the knife.

Detective Williams observed the forensic interviews of the children, and he

found nothing that led him to believe that Taofeek was the first aggressor. On the

contrary, Detective Williams testified that he believed Akran was the first

aggressor.

Sergeant Justin White

Sergeant Justin White, an officer with the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s

Office, assisted Detective Williams with the investigation of Taofeek’s death. He

was sent to the scene where Merrick’s car was stopped so that he could interview

Akran.

Sergeant White did not observe any injuries on Akran. Akran did not

mention any injuries or request medical attention. Akran waived his Miranda

warnings and spoke to the police while he was in the car. Sergeant White listened

to Akran’s statement to Detective Williams. According to Sergeant White, Akran

did not express fear for his life during the altercation, and he did not say he had

been hurt or attacked.

Sergeant White testified that Akran told police he was arguing with Taofeek

at Briggs’ house and Taofeek wanted to fight him. Akran said he had a weapon in

his hand because Taofeek made him angry. Akran said Taofeek had a chair in his

11
hand. According to Sergeant White, Akran said the chair “may have been thrown

in his direction.” The discussion of the chair in the interview was “very brief.”

Akran stated “he had the knife in his hand before the decedent grabbed the chair.”

Sergeant White testified that Akran said he “was in possession of the knife first.

And then the—[] interaction with the chair happened after that.”

Dr. Erin Barnhart

Dr. Erin Barnhart is Galveston County’s chief medical examiner.9 She

testified that Taofeek had two stab wounds, one in the right chest and one in his

abdomen. The first wound was to the right chest and the second to the abdomen. A

knife blade was found in the abdomen wound. She testified that the wound to the

chest was a fatal wound that would have killed Taofeek “fairly quickly,” but he

could have survived for a minute or two. Dr. Barnhart testified that it could have

been possible for Taofeek to throw a chair immediately after he was stabbed in the

chest. He could have moved backward or forward immediately after being stabbed,

and he could have continued a fist fight for a minute after the stabbing.

9
At the time of Taofeek’s death, Fort Bend County did not have its own medical
examiner’s office and contracted with Galveston County to provide forensic
autopsies. A Galveston County forensic pathologist conducted Taofeek’s autopsy.

12
The Verdict

The jury convicted Akran and assessed his punishment at forty-five years.

This appeal ensued. Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient because the

evidence demonstrates he was justified in using deadly force against Taofeek.

A. Standard of Review

A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a claim

of self-defense. See Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App.

2018) (“The defendant’s burden of production requires him to adduce some

evidence that would support a rational finding in his favor on the defensive

issue.”); see also London v. State, 325 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008,

pet. ref’d) (“A defendant has the burden of producing some evidence to support a

claim of self-defense.”). The State bears the burden of persuasion to negate self-

defense. See Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 608; London, 325 S.W.3d at 202. But the

State’s burden “is not one that requires the production of evidence; rather it

requires only that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Braughton,

569 S.W.3d at 608 (quoting Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App.

2003)). A jury’s guilty verdict is an implicit finding rejecting a defendant’s self-

defense theory. London, 325 S.W.3d at 202 (citing Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d

910, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

13
We review both legal and factual sufficiency challenges to the jury’s

rejection of self-defense under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. See Rankin v.

State, 617 S.W.3d 169, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d).

Under that standard, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Rankin, 617 S.W.3d at 182. Viewed in the

light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is insufficient under this standard

when either (1) the record contains no evidence, or merely a “modicum” of

evidence, probative of an element of the offense, or (2) the evidence conclusively

establishes a reasonable doubt. Rankin, 617 S.W.3d at 182 (citing Jackson, 443

U.S. at 314, 319 n.11).

An appellate court “may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the

record evidence and thereby substitute [its] judgment for that of the fact-finder.”

Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). We defer to the

jury to “fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw

reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id.; see Rankin, 617

S.W.3d at 182 (citing Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007));

see also Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15 (stating juries may draw multiple reasonable

inferences from direct or circumstantial so long as each inference is supported by

14
evidence). Because self-defense is a fact issue to be determined by the jury, the

jury may accept or reject any defensive evidence on the issue. Mitchell v. State,

590 S.W.3d 597, 604 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (citing

Saxton, 804 S.W.2d at 913–14). Where “there are two permissible views of the

evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”

Braughton, 569 S.W.3d at 608 (quoting Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158, 163 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006)). “We presume that the factfinder resolved any conflicting

inferences in favor of the verdict, and we defer to that resolution.” Rankin, 617

S.W.3d at 182.

B. Applicable Law

One commits murder if he

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual[.]

TEX. PEN. CODE § 19.02(b)(1)-(2).10 A jury may infer that the defendant intended

to kill the complainant from the defendant’s use of a deadly weapon and from

other circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s acts, words, and the extent

10
The jury charge included this definition. The charge also instructed that one “acts
intentionally, or with intent, when it is his conscious objective or desire to cause
the result.” Further, “[a] person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect
to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to
cause the result.” Finally, the charge instructed that one is criminally responsible
“if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct.”

15
of the complainant’s injuries. See Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003) (stating jury may infer intent “from any facts in evidence which it

determines proves the existence of such intent to kill, such as the use of a deadly

weapon”); Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(stating defendant’s “intent to commit murder may [] be inferred from

circumstantial evidence, including his acts and words”); Lopez v. State, 672

S.W.3d 915, 923 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2023, pet. ref’d) (“Intent

to kill may [] be inferred from the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the

victim.”).

The use of deadly force in self-defense is a defense to prosecution for

murder if the use of deadly force is “justified.” TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 9.02, 9.31–

.32. Section 9.31(a) of the Penal Code states that “a person is justified in using

force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the

force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or

attempted use of unlawful force.” Id. § 9.31(a). Section 9.32(a) of the Penal Code

provides that a person’s use of deadly force is justified “if the actor would be

justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31” and “when and to the

degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary . . .

to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly

force[.]” Id. § 9.32(a)(1)–(2)(A).

16
The phrase “reasonably believes” contains “subjective and objective

components.” Lozano v. State, 636 S.W.3d 25, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). “A

defendant must subjectively believe that another person used or attempted to use

unlawful force . . . or deadly force . . . against the defendant and that the

defendant’s use of unlawful or deadly force in response was immediately

necessary.” Id. The defendant’s subjective belief, however, must be objectively

reasonable. Id. The reasonableness of the defendant’s subjective belief is measured

by the objective standard of an “ordinary and prudent man.” Id. (quoting TEX.

PENAL CODE § 1.07(a)(42)); see TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(a)(42) (defining

“reasonable belief” as one held by “an ordinary and prudent man in the same

circumstances as the actor”).

A defendant need not testify to raise the issue of self-defense. See

VanBrackle v. State, 179 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.)

(“Defensive issues may be raised by the testimony of any witnesses, even those

called by the State.”); see also Lavern v. State, 48 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d) (“While a non-testifying defendant may be

entitled to a charge on self-defense, it is rare for the defense to be raised when the

defendant fails to testify.”). However, there must be some evidence of the

defendant’s subjective belief that another person used or attempted to use unlawful

or deadly force against the defendant “and that the defendant’s use of unlawful or

17
deadly force in response was immediately necessary.” See Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at

32.

When, as here, a defendant does not testify, the record must contain

evidence of “observable manifestations” of the defendant’s state of mind at the

time of the alleged act of self-defense, or some evidence from which the jury can

infer the defendant had the requisite mens rea. See VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d at 714;

see also Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 33 (“[A] person’s belief, absent direct evidence,

generally must be inferred from the circumstances of the case.”). Observable

manifestations of a defendant’s state of mind include evidence that the defendant

called for help during an altercation or told the complainant, “I don’t want to fight

you . . . . leave me alone,” as they struggled. Arevalo v. State, No. 01-19-00085-

CR, 2020 WL 3968671, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 24, 2020, pet.

ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d

at 714).

C. Analysis

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record reflects that

Akran appeared at Briggs’ home in the early morning hours of August 16, 2018,

and upon learning Taofeek was in the house, stated he was going to get his

children and leave. Odoms and Briggs attempted to dissuade Akran from leaving

with the children in the middle of the night.

18
Akran told Odoms that he was not a bad person, and that if he were one, he

would have damaged Taofeek’s car, which was parked in front of the house. At

that point, Akran and Taofeek began to argue in Briggs’ home. The men calmed

down at some point but soon thereafter, the argument escalated again. At some

point during the argument, the men went into the breakfast area of Briggs’ house.

Akran ran toward Taofeek with a knife and Taofeek threw a chair at Akran. Akran

stabbed Taofeek twice and he died within a few minutes.

The record reflects there was conflicting testimony as to whether Akran ran

toward Taofeek with the knife before or after Taofeek grabbed or threw a chair at

him. Briggs testified both that Taofeek threw a chair at Akran after he ran toward

Taofeek with the knife and also that Taofeek threw the chair first. Ben testified at

trial that Taofeek threw the chair before Akran grabbed the knife, but later he

testified that Taofeek did not point any weapon at Akran or throw the chair before

Akran approached him with the knife. Ben also conceded during trial that he gave

a statement the day of the stabbing where he said that Akran charged Taofeek,

swinging at Taofeek with the knife in his hand, before Taofeek threw the chair at

Akran. As the sole fact finder, it was the jury’s province to resolve any conflicts in

the evidence, and we defer to the jury’s resolution of the issue. See Rankin, 617

S.W.3d at 182 (stating courts defer to jury to “fairly resolve conflicts in testimony,

to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to

19
ultimate facts”). The jury could have believed testimony that Akran charged at

Taofeek with a knife before Taofeek threw the chair and disbelieved any testimony

that Taofeek threw the chair at Akran first.

There is also no evidence that Akran subjectively believed that the use of

deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself from Taofeek. There is

no evidence that Akran made any statements before, during, or after the stabbing

indicating he believed Taofeek was using or attempting to use unlawful force or

unlawful deadly force against him and that his use of deadly force in response was

immediately necessary. On the contrary, during Detective Williams’ interview of

Akran soon after the stabbing, Akran did not say Taofeek that hit him or had a

weapon. When asked why he had a knife in his hand, Akran said it was because

Taofeek kept talking to him and made him angry. Akran told police that no force

was used against him before he got the knife from the kitchen drawer. See

VanBrackle, 179 S.W.3d at 714 (concluding evidence defendant “responded to this

assault by grabbing the pistol, pushing it away, and calling for help” was

observable manifestation of defendant’s state of mind); Arevalo, 2020 WL

3968671, at *3 (concluding evidence showing that defendant told complainant, “I

don’t want to fight you . . . . leave me alone,” as they struggled was observable

20
manifestation of defendant’s state of mind).11 Assuming the evidence could

support a finding that a person in Akran’s position could have reasonably believed

the use of deadly force was immediately necessary, there is no evidence that Akran

held this subjective belief. See Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 32 (stating defendant’s

subjective belief that use of deadly force is immediately necessary must be

objectively reasonable when measured by objective standard of ordinary and

prudent man).

Akran argues that testimony by Briggs, Dr. Barnhart, and Detective

Williams supports his self-defense claim. He points to testimony by Briggs

regarding Taofeek’s challenge of Akran to a fight, and her conflicting testimony

that Akran picked up a knife to defend himself against Taofeek after Taofeek threw

a chair at Akran. He also relies on Detective Williams’ testimony that one who is

defending himself does not have to wait to get hit and that a chair can cause serious

bodily injury, and on testimony by Dr. Barnhart that it is possible Taofeek

continued to struggle with Akran right before his death. But challenging someone

to a fight is not tantamount to the use of deadly or unlawful force, and as noted,

Briggs also testified that the chair was not thrown before Akran got a knife from

11
According to the audio of Akran’s 911 call after the stabbing, Akran calmly told
the 911 operator that Taofeek had fainted and needed medical attention. He
subsequently became agitated and told the 911 operator that Akran was bleeding
and to “hurry up.” He told the operator an ambulance was needed but not the
police.

21
the kitchen drawer. While Akran points to testimony from Dr. Barnhart and

Detective Williams, neither of them addressed Akran’s state of mind when he

stabbed Taofeek. Detective Williams testified that he did not find anything that led

him to believe Taofeek was the first aggressor.

Akran also ignores testimony that indicates he ran with a knife toward

Taofeek before the chair was thrown. In addition to Briggs’ testimony, Ben’s

statement, made the day of the stabbing, indicated that Taofeek threw the chair

after Akran ran toward him with a knife. And according to Detective Williams,

Akran’s statement to police indicated he got a knife because Taofeek kept talking

to him and made him angry, and that no force was used against him before he got

the knife.

In a homicide case, the defendant’s state of mind is a question of fact for the

jury to determine, and the jury may infer intent “from any facts in evidence which

it determines proves the existence of such intent to kill, such as the use of a deadly

weapon.” Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing

Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)). For example, “[i]t is

both a common-sense inference and an appellate presumption that a person intends

the natural consequences of his acts and that the act of pointing a loaded gun at

someone and shooting it toward that person at close range demonstrates an intent

to kill.” Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549, 556 n.18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

22
(internal citations omitted); see Brown, 122 S.W.3d at 800 (stating intent to kill can

be inferred from defendant’s “use of a deadly weapon”).

Based on the record before us, and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict, as we must, we conclude that a jury rationally could have

found beyond a reasonable doubt that Akran intentionally caused Taofeek’s death

by stabbing him and that Akran did not reasonably believe that deadly force was

immediately necessary to protect himself from Taofeek, thus rejecting Akran’s

self-defense claim. See Rankin, 617 S.W.3d at 184.

We hold there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of

Akran’s self-defense claim. We overrule Akran’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Veronica Rivas-Molloy
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

23