evidence at trial. See Cleveland, 177 S.W.3d at 388-89. 2. Legally Sufficient Evidence of No Sudden Passion In examining the record under the first prong of the civil legal sufficiency standard, we conclude that some evidence exists to support the jury’s negative finding on the issue of sudden passion. Monci-vais testified that his brother warned him that Erik was coming to his house to fight. Moncivais showed his girlfriend his gun to use in case the fight escalated. The jury heard testimony from the neighbor that Moncivais waited outside his home for the fight to begin and appeared agitated before they even arrived. Anticipation of and preparation for the fight constitutes some evidence that Moncivais had time to deliberate regarding his actions. See McKinney, 179 S.W.3d at 569-70 (<HOLDING>); see also Ontiveros v. State, No.
holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence holding that defendant waived error of admission of hearsay testimony when he elicited it himself holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency holding that defendant was not under immediate influence of sudden passion when he anticipated event and prepared himself to respond holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence