This question has been addressed in 1 Texas court opinion:
COA01 — February 24, 2026
In May v. State, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after accelerating his vehicle while police officers were partially inside the car attempting an arrest, causing them to be thrown to the ground. The defendant argued he lacked the requisite intent because his primary goal was to flee, not to threaten the officers. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the 'knowing' mental state under the Texas Penal Code, characterizing assault by threat as a 'conduct-oriented' offense. The court held that because the defendant chose to maneuver the vehicle while aware of the officers' immediate physical proximity to the car’s path, a rational juror could infer he acted with the necessary intent, regardless of his ultimate desire to escape.
Litigation Takeaway
“The 'I was just trying to leave' defense is insufficient to defeat a claim of assault or family violence if the actor is aware that their departure puts another person in the 'danger zone' of a vehicle. In family law disputes, evidence that a party accelerated or maneuvered a car while a spouse or child was near the doors or path of travel establishes the 'knowing' mental state required for a Family Violence Protective Order, even if the party’s stated goal was merely to de-escalate by driving away.”