Page 46 - TPA Journal September October 2022
P. 46
Hernandez’s and EMT Black’s testimony stating Hernandez stating that Bolden referred to
that Bolden referred to Appellant as her Appellant as her boyfriend, as well
boyfriend. The court reasoned that the jury as the circumstantial evidence showing that
was “not permitted to disregard Officer Appellant was found in Bolden’s bedroom. She
Hernandez’s Later testimony [that he gave] also noted that Officer Hernandez had
after viewing the body-camera video . . . [in provided Bolden with the family-violence
which he admitted] that the complainant did form, which “supports a logical inference that
not identify appellant as her boyfriend[.]” Nor [the victim] informed the officer that she and
was the jury permitted to disregard Black’s appellant were involved in a dating
“admission during cross-examination that the relationship.” Regarding the plurality’s
complainant did not tell her that appellant was disregard of Officer Hernandez’s testimony
her boyfriend.” The court also noted that based on the contents of the body-cam video,
Bolden never referred to Appellant as her Justice Christopher noted that the plurality’s
boyfriend during the portion of the body- analysis “fails to recognize that the body cam
camera video that had been played for the jury. video did not capture the entire interaction”
With respect to the State’s alternative argument between Officer Hernandez and Bolden.
that other circumstantial evidence could Because the video ended while Hernandez
support a finding of a dating relationship—i.e., was still in Bolden’s apartment documenting
that Appellant was found in Bolden’s bedroom her injuries, Justice Christopher reasoned that
and that the two were alone in her “the jury could have reasonably concluded
apartment— the court of appeals also rejected that the complainant identified appellant as
that argument, reasoning that “based on this her boyfriend after the body cam had stopped
evidence, a factfinder could do no more than recording.” Similarly, with respect to the
speculate on the existence of a dating plurality’s disregard of EMT Black’s testimony,
relationship[.]” While the court found the Justice Christopher noted that such reasoning
evidence insufficient to support the existence “flies in the face of our standard of review,
of a dating relationship, it held that the which provides that when there is a conflict in
evidence was nevertheless sufficient to support the evidence, we must presume that the jury
all otherelements of assault, such that resolved the conflict in favor of the verdict.”
reformation of the judgment, rather than Thus, Justice Christopher would have affirmed
acquittal, was the proper remedy. Therefore, Appellant’s conviction for felony assault.
the court reversed Appellant’s conviction for
third degree felony assault and remanded the II. Analysis
case with instructions for the trial court to
reform the judgment to reflect a conviction for Agreeing in large part with Justice
the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor Christopher’s dissenting opinion, we reject the
assault and to hold a new punishment hearing. court of appeals’ conclusion that the evidence
Justice Christopher dissented, opining that the was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of
record contained “ample evidence of a dating a dating relationship between Appellant and
relationship” between Appellant and Bolden. Bolden. Viewing the evidence in a light most
In support, she cited the evidence that had favorable to the verdict, and applying the plain
been discounted by the plurality, namely, the language of Texas Family Code Section
testimony from EMT Black and Officer 71.0021(b), we find that the jury could have
42 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
