<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>
<CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">6</A>-00<A NAME="2">234</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Michael Rose</A>, Appellant</CENTER>


<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>The State of Texas, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF <A NAME="4">WILLIAMSON</A> COUNTY<A NAME="5"></A></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">95-1792-1</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">KEVIN HENDERSON</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>



A jury found appellant guilty of communicating with the complainant in a threatening and
harassing manner, in violation of a protective order.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.07(a)(2) (West Supp.
1997).  The county court at law assessed punishment at incarceration for 365 days and a $3000 fine,
suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision.  Appellant contends
that section 25.07(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague and that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the
conviction.

<P>The State concedes that the evidence in this cause, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the verdict, does not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant communicated with the
complainant in either a threatening or harassing manner.  <SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><EM>See Jackson v. Virginia</EM>, 443 U.S. 307 (1979);
<EM>Geesa v. State</EM>, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); <EM>Griffin v. State</EM>, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1981) (test for legal sufficiency).  </SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Accordingly, point of error two is sustained.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">The constitutionality of a statute should not be addressed unless it is absolutely necessary
to decide the appeal.  <EM>Briggs v. State</EM>, 740 S.W.2d 803, 806-07 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).  Because of
our disposition of the second point of error, we do not address the constitutional issue raised in point one.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">We reverse the judgment of conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">				<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                                        </SPAN></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">				Jimmy Carroll, Chief Justice</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and Kidd</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Reversed and Rendered</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Filed:   October 2, 1997</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
