Page 49 - TPA Journal September October 2022
P. 49
and (3) the frequency and type of interaction Bolden’s bedroom was one factor that, viewed
between the persons involved in the holistically with the other evidence, would
relationship.” § 71.0021(b)(1)–(3) (emphasis permit the jury to rationally infer that there was
added). While Appellant contends that the an intimate relationship between
record must contain affirmative evidence as to Appellant and Bolden.
each factor under Section 71.0021(b), we
disagree because the statute merely requires Additionally, the fact that Officer Hernandez
that the fact-finder consider the listed factors. gave Bolden the family-violence form
In other words, these factors are not standalone supported a logical inference that she told him
elements of the offense which the prosecution that she and Appellant were in a dating
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. relationship. Although this evidence was
Instead, they are guideposts for the jury to circumstantial, it is just as probative as direct
weigh in evaluating whether the broader evidence in establishing Appellant’s guilt. Thus,
definition in Subsection (b)—a “continuing the court of appeals further erred by
relationship of a romantic or intimate disregarding the circumstantial evidence in
nature”—is met. Further, Subsection (c) limits support of the jury’s verdict. In sum,
the scope of the definition in Subsection (b) by considering the cumulative force of all the
providing that a “casual acquaintanceship or evidence through the appropriate lens of
ordinary fraternization in a business or social deference to the jury’s verdict, we hold that the
context does not constitute a dating evidence was sufficient for the jury to have
relationship.” § 71.0021(c). rationally determined that Appellant and
Bolden “have or have had a continuing
Applying these statutory requirements here and relationship of a romantic or intimate nature,”
viewing the evidence in the light most rather than just a “casual acquaintanceship or
favorable to the verdict, the dating relationship ordinary fraternization.” TEX. FAM. CODE §
element was satisfied. First, we take note of the 71.0021(b), (c).
fact that Officer Hernandez testified that
Bolden called Appellant her “boyfriend” at Under Family Code Section 71.0021(b), the
some point during their interaction. Common evidence is sufficient to establish a
usage of the word by itself implies a continuing dating relationship where it supports a finding
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. that there is or has been “a continuing
Second, there was also circumstantial relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.”
evidence supporting the “dating relationship” Here, the evidence showed that: (1) Bolden
element: (1) Appellant and Bolden had been referred to Appellant as her boyfriend; (2) the
alone together inside Bolden’s apartment and two were alone together inside Bolden’s
clearly knew each other prior to the incident in apartment; (3) Appellant was found sitting on
question; (2) Appellant was found sitting on Bolden’s bed; and (4) Bolden completed and
Bolden’s bed; and (3) Bolden completed and signed a family-violence form that had been
signed the family-violence form that Officer provided to her by the responding officer.
Hernandez gave her. Considered together in a light most favorable
to the jury’s verdict, this evidence is
We agree with Justice Christopher that the sufficient for a rational jury to conclude
circumstance of Appellant being found in beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant and
Sept./Oct. 2022 45
