testimony and other evidence in support of his defensive theory, the standard of review requires us to presume that the jury resolved any conflicts in favor of its verdict and to defer to the jury’s determination. See Wise, 364 S.W.3d at 903 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318, 99 S.Ct. at 2788-89). Viewed in the proper light, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Cantu intentionally or knowingly caused Jackie’s death. The inconsistencies in Cantu’s statements could cause a rational juror to doubt the credibility of Cantu’s assertion that the gun discharged accidentally while he tried to take the gun from Jackie. Expert testimony about the evidence at the cr 2008 WL 3272146, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas Aug. 11, 2008) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Butler v. State, 700 S.W.2d 319, 323
holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding evidence sufficient where defendant claimed he was out of state visiting a friend at time of trial and mistakenly believed that the case had been continued holding evidence sufficient where defendant claimed shooting was accidental and state presented contradicting testimony holding it error to give selfdefense instruction requiring that defendant believe his actions were necessary to avert death or great bodily harm when defendant claimed that the victims death was accidental