the flat tires in the Gomezes’s vehicles. Although there was testimony that supported an inference that the Gomezes could have picked up screws in their tires elsewhere — from screws dropped by the oil well vehicles or from elsewhere in their drives to and from work — it was within the purview of the trial court to resolve this conflicting evidence, and we presume that the court did so in favor of the verdict. See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 525-26. We conclude that the foregoing circumstantial evidence shows that Carrizales intentionally placed the screws in the roadway to damage the Gomezes’ tires. It was reasonable for the fact finder to infer from Carrizales’s words and actions that he had a motive to damage the Gomezes’ tires. See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 487. The
holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence