Page 48 - TPA Journal September October 2022
P. 48
Section 22.01(b)(2) expressly incorporates the Hernandez’s testimony regarding Bolden’s
definition of “dating relationship” found in description of Appellant as her “boyfriend.”
Family Code Section 71.0021(b). Id. § While Officer Hernandez clarified on cross
22.01(b)(2). Because the statute expressly examination that Bolden did not make that
incorporates this definition and it constitutes statement during the admitted portion of his
an element of the offense, it is part of the body-camera video, he never wavered from his
hypothetically-correct jury charge against assertion that she did at some point tell him
which the sufficiency of the evidence must be Appellant was her boyfriend. Further, the
measured. admitted portion of Officer Hernandez’s body
camera did not capture his entire interaction
Section 71.0021(b) states: with Bolden. In fact, the admitted portion of
(b) For purposes of this title, “dating the video ends when Officer Hernandez re-
relationship” means a relationship entered the apartment for the purpose of
between individuals who have or have had a interviewing Bolden. Thus, we find, as Justice
continuing relationship of a Christopher did, that based on these facts, the
romantic or intimate nature. The existence of jury was permitted to draw the reasonable
such a relationship shall be inference that Bolden at some point told
determined based on consideration of: Officer Hernandez that Appellant was her
(1) the length of the relationship; boyfriend and that such statement was simply
(2) the nature of the relationship; and not included in the portion of the video that
(3) the frequency and type of interaction was played for the jury. To the extent that the
between the persons court of appeals believed this evidence to be
involved in the relationship. conflicting or lacking in credibility, it was the
TEX. FAM. CODE § 71.0021(b). Subsection (c) jury’s “responsibility . . . fairly to resolve
additionally provides that “[a] casual conflicts in the testimony” and to evaluate
acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in Officer Hernandez’s credibility with respect to
a business or social context does not what Bolden told him. Accordingly, by
constitute a ‘dating relationship’ under disregarding Officer Hernandez’s testimony,
Subsection (b).” § 71.0021(c). the lower court deviated from the appropriate
standard of review and thus erred.
Having set forth the relevant statutory
requirements, we now turn to an analysis of After resolving that issue, we are still presented
the evidence in this case to determine whether with the question of whether the
it meets the statutory definition for establishing totality of the evidence in the record showed
a “dating relationship.” that Appellant and Bolden had “a continuing
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature”
We, like Justice Christopher, conclude that the as is required to establish a dating
jury could have rationally found relationship under the Family Code. See TEX.
beyond a reasonable doubt that the FAM. CODE § 71.0021(b). We observe that the
requirements of Family Code Section statute instructs that “the existence of such a
71.0021(b) were satisfied here. At the outset, relationship shall be determined based on
contrary to the court of appeals’ suggestion, it consideration of: (1) the length of the
was not irrational for the jury to credit Officer relationship; (2) the nature of the relationship;
44 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
