Serious Bodily Injury Sufficiency | Thermilus v. State (2026)

Thermilus v. State, 05-25-00640-CR, August 05, 2026.

On appeal from 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to prove both causation and serious bodily injury where the jury could infer from the sequence of events, eyewitness testimony, medical testimony, and the complainant’s immediate symptoms that the defendant caused a displaced humerus fracture during a violent assault. The court further concluded that a fracture requiring surgery, months of immobilization, extended physical therapy, inability to work, and lasting functional limitations satisfied Penal Code section 1.07(a)(46).

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, Thermilus matters because criminal assault findings and the evidentiary themes underlying them routinely migrate into divorce, SAPCR, protective-order, and property disputes. The opinion is particularly useful when litigating family violence allegations that turn on circumstantial proof, delayed disclosure, inconsistent early statements, or the degree of injury. In custody litigation, this case reinforces how trial courts may credit the overall evidentiary picture rather than isolated inconsistencies, which is directly relevant to conservatorship restrictions, supervised possession, family-violence findings under the Family Code, and best-interest analysis. In divorce and property cases, the same proof can affect exclusive use of the residence, injunctive relief, disproportionate division, reimbursement theories tied to medical costs or lost earnings, and credibility determinations that influence every contested issue in the case.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The complainant, A.S., testified that after confronting Brandon Thermilus about messages on his phone and telling him she was leaving, he assaulted her inside the home they shared. According to her account, he punched, slapped, choked, kicked, and dragged her while she tried to protect her head and face with her arms and attempted to flee. She eventually escaped the residence and ran to a neighbor’s home yelling for help.

The neighbor, H.H., testified that she saw A.S. at her front door and saw Thermilus chase her down and tackle her onto the pavement in a violent manner. A.S. testified that when she regained consciousness after that tackle, she immediately experienced severe pain, saw swelling, and realized her left arm was broken.

The responding officer found A.S. in visible distress, screaming in pain, and repeatedly saying that Thermilus had beaten her. A paramedic observed an obvious deformity in the arm consistent with fracture or dislocation and administered fentanyl. The emergency physician testified that x-rays showed a displaced transverse midshaft humerus fracture, an injury he described as uncommon and typically associated with significant force. He also observed bruising and abrasions consistent with the reported assault.

The injury course mattered. A.S. underwent surgery, remained in a cast for roughly two months, then in a sling for four to five months, and participated in physical therapy for about a year. At trial, approximately two years later, she testified that she still lacked full range of motion and full strength, remained limited in everyday activities, and had been unable to work for about a year.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Thermilus caused A.S.’s broken arm.
• Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the broken arm constituted “serious bodily injury” under Texas Penal Code section 1.07(a)(46).

Rules Applied

The court applied the standard legal-sufficiency framework under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), reviewing all admitted evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also relied on the settled principle that appellate courts defer to the jury’s credibility calls, presume conflicts were resolved in favor of the verdict, and assess the cumulative force of the evidence rather than viewing each fact in isolation. The opinion cited Meza v. State, 706 S.W.3d 914, 920–21 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2024, pet. ref’d), for those propositions and for the point that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient.

On causation, the court applied Texas Penal Code section 6.04(a): a person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, acting alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient and the actor’s conduct clearly insufficient.

On the injury element, the court addressed “serious bodily injury” as defined by Texas Penal Code section 1.07(a)(46), which includes bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Application

The court treated the causation question as a classic circumstantial-evidence problem and found the State had supplied enough connective tissue for a rational jury to find but-for causation. Thermilus argued that no witness explicitly testified that the tackle caused the fracture and that the jury was forced to speculate. The court rejected that framing. A.S. had been using her arms during the assault to shield herself and was still physically capable of running to the neighbor’s house and banging on the door. H.H. then described a forceful, violent tackle onto the pavement, not a mere stumble or accidental fall. A.S. testified that when she regained consciousness after that event, the severe pain and visible condition of her arm made clear that it was broken. The officer, paramedic, and physician all observed the injury shortly thereafter. In the court’s view, the jury was entitled to infer from that sequence that the fracture occurred during the tackle.

The court’s reasoning is significant because it does not require a medical witness to identify the precise biomechanical mechanism of the fracture. Instead, it recognizes that juries may connect injury to conduct through timing, physical ability before the event, immediate symptoms after the event, eyewitness observations, and corroborating medical evidence. The physician’s testimony strengthened that inference because he described the fracture as one generally associated with significant force, consistent with the violent account the jury heard.

Although the opinion snippet provided here ends before the court’s full serious-bodily-injury discussion, the stated holding makes clear how the court resolved that issue. A displaced humerus fracture requiring surgery, prolonged immobilization, extended therapy, inability to work for a substantial period, and lingering deficits in range of motion and strength supported a finding of protracted loss or impairment. That factual combination allowed the jury to conclude the injury rose above ordinary bodily injury and met the statutory threshold for serious bodily injury.

Holding

The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Thermilus caused A.S.’s broken arm. Even without direct testimony pinpointing the exact moment of fracture, the surrounding circumstances permitted a rational jury to conclude that the violent tackle onto the pavement was the but-for cause of the displaced humerus fracture.

The court also held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove serious bodily injury under Penal Code section 1.07(a)(46). The nature of the fracture and the resulting surgery, immobilization, long rehabilitation period, inability to work, and lasting physical limitations supported a rational finding of protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member.

Practical Application

For family-law practitioners, Thermilus is less about criminal doctrine in the abstract and more about proof architecture. Many family cases involving family violence proceed with the same evidentiary profile seen here: the victim’s account evolves over time; initial reports are incomplete; there may be no perfect eyewitness to every moment; and the respondent argues that causation is speculative or that the injury is exaggerated. This opinion underscores that Texas factfinders may rely on the entire evidentiary mosaic.

In protective-order hearings, temporary-orders hearings, and final trials, the case supports the proposition that a complainant’s delayed or incomplete disclosure is not fatal where pain, fear, trauma, or confusion explain the omission and where later testimony is corroborated by physical evidence, neighboring witnesses, EMS records, photographs, or treatment chronology. If you represent the movant, Thermilus helps frame the argument that the court should evaluate credibility in context rather than treating early inconsistency as dispositive.

In SAPCR and modification litigation, the case is especially useful when opposing a parent’s effort to minimize a violent event as an “accidental fall,” “mutual combat,” or “overstated injury.” The opinion approves inference-based factfinding from temporal sequence and injury mechanics. That is directly relevant when arguing for supervised possession, geographic restrictions, injunctions against harassment, or findings that family violence has a continuing impact on the child’s environment even if the child was not the direct victim.

In divorce litigation, Thermilus also has practical implications for disproportionality arguments. Serious assault evidence may support requests for exclusive occupancy, reimbursement tied to treatment expenses, temporary spousal support framed by lost earning capacity after abuse, or a disproportionate estate division based on cruel treatment or fault-related conduct. The more complete the medical and functional-loss record, the stronger the downstream family-law remedies.

If you represent the responding party in family court, the lesson is equally clear: attacks focused only on the absence of direct causation testimony or on an initial inconsistent statement may not carry the day. You need a coherent alternative causation narrative, developed through cross-examination and, where appropriate, expert testimony, rather than mere suggestions that the injury might have happened some other way.

Checklists

Build the Causation Record

• Establish the complainant’s physical condition immediately before the critical event.
• Pin down the sequence of events with timestamps from 911 calls, dispatch logs, bodycam, and medical records.
• Obtain eyewitness testimony describing whether the event was accidental, forceful, intentional, or violent.
• Use EMS and ER records to document immediate complaints of pain, deformity, loss of function, and mechanism of injury.
• Tie visible injuries to the reported event with photographs, officer observations, and treating-provider testimony.
• Emphasize immediate onset of symptoms after the challenged conduct.
• Anticipate and neutralize defense arguments that no witness saw the exact moment of injury.

Prove Serious Bodily Injury in a Family-Violence Setting

• Gather operative reports, imaging, discharge summaries, and physical-therapy records.
• Document immobilization periods such as casting, bracing, slings, or activity restrictions.
• Prove duration of impairment, not just the existence of injury.
• Develop testimony about lost range of motion, diminished strength, inability to work, and limitations in daily activities.
• Preserve evidence of long-term or permanent deficits through updated treatment records close to trial.
• If helpful, use treating providers to explain why the injury required significant force and why recovery was prolonged.
• Do not rely solely on diagnostic labels; connect the medical diagnosis to actual functional impairment.

Address Delayed Disclosure and Inconsistent Early Statements

• Prepare the witness to explain why initial statements were incomplete or inaccurate.
• Corroborate trauma-based explanations with medical testimony, pain-medication records, and contemporaneous distress evidence.
• Use the chronology of events to show that later disclosures fit the physical evidence.
• Distinguish between omission and contradiction; courts often treat them differently in credibility analysis.
• Avoid overstating perfect consistency where the record shows understandable evolution in reporting.
• Frame fear of retaliation or release from custody as part of the context when supported by the evidence.

Use the Case Strategically in Custody and Divorce Litigation

• Link assault evidence to best-interest factors and the need for possession restrictions.
• Seek findings regarding family violence for use in conservatorship and possession rulings.
• Support exclusive-use and injunctive requests with detailed injury evidence and safety concerns.
• In property cases, connect abuse-related medical bills, lost wages, and disruption to disproportionality arguments.
• Where the child was present or exposed, develop evidence of the child’s awareness and the household pattern of violence.
• Use criminal-case testimony, records, and judgments carefully and authenticate them for family-court use.

Avoid the Non-Prevailing Party’s Appellate Problem

• Do not assume the absence of direct testimony defeats causation.
• Do not rely on speculative alternative causes without evidentiary support.
• If disputing mechanism of injury, consider expert testimony rather than argument alone.
• Challenge functional-impairment proof with specific contrary evidence, not generalized minimization.
• Develop impeachment that matters to the central timeline, not collateral inconsistencies.
• Recognize that appellate courts defer heavily to factfinder credibility determinations.

Citation

Thermilus v. State, No. 05-25-00640-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~fc625178-aff5-4dbe-b537-e2cff044adb6~~