Edward v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 14-18-00302-CR,14-18-00302-CR |
| Citation | 599 S.W.3d 69 |
| Parties | Duke EDWARD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
PLURALITY OPINION
A jury convicted appellant Duke Edward of felony assault of a family member as defined by section 71.0021(b) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1). The jury assessed appellant's punishment at sixty years in prison. See id. § 12.42(d) (). In a single issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for directed verdict because the State failed to prove he was in a "dating relationship" with the complainant. We agree with appellant that the State failed to present legally-sufficient evidence that he was in a dating relationship with the complainant. We do not reverse and render a judgment of acquittal however, because the jury, through its verdict, necessarily found every constituent element of the lesser-included offense of assault. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment, remand the case to the trial court with instructions to reform the judgment to reflect a conviction for the offense of assault, and to hold a punishment hearing attendant to this post-reformation conviction.
The complainant called 9-1-1 to report a disturbance at her apartment. Officer Richard Hernandez with the La Marque Police Department was dispatched to the complainant's residence. When he arrived on the scene Hernandez found the complainant in a state of hysteria. The complainant appeared to have injuries on her face, and blood was present on both her shirt and face. The complainant indicated to Officer Hernandez that appellant was responsible for her injuries, providing the name "Duke Edward" when Officer Hernandez asked what was happening. Moments later, Officer Hernandez found appellant sitting on a bed in the back bedroom of the apartment. Officer Hernandez took appellant into custody and placed him in the back of his patrol car while the second responding officer remained with the complainant. The La Marque Fire Department ambulance arrived while Hernandez was still at his patrol car with appellant.
Officer Hernandez initially testified that the complainant told him that "her boyfriend beat her up" when he first made contact with her. During cross-examination, Officer Hernandez admitted that the complainant did not identify appellant as her "boyfriend" on the portion of the body camera video1 showing his initial contact with the complainant, or during the 9-1-1 recording. A short time later, the following exchange occurred between appellant's attorney and Officer Hernandez:
Officer Hernandez's body-camera video that was entered into evidence during appellant's trial ended while the complainant, the responding police officers, and the responding EMS personnel were still inside the complainant's apartment.2 Other evidence in the record, in addition to what appears on the body-camera video, indicates that the on-site investigation had not been completed when the body-camera video ended. This evidence includes Officer Hernandez's testimony that he encouraged the complainant to go with EMS personnel to the hospital, and that he gave the complainant a family violence form. Officer Hernandez also testified that the complainant signed the family violence form. The form was not admitted into evidence however.
Officer Hernandez was also asked during cross-examination if he later returned to the scene to speak with potential eyewitnesses or with the complainant's neighbors. Officer Hernandez admitted that he had not. Officer Hernandez was also not aware of any other officers from the La Marque Police Department going to the apartment complex to interview neighbors or witnesses. Officer Hernandez also admitted that he did not review the lease for the complainant's apartment or speak with the complex management to investigate whether they had any information about appellant's connection with the apartment lease.
On re-direct, the prosecutor clarified with Officer Hernandez that the body-camera video shown during his direct testimony was only an excerpt. The prosecutor then asked Officer Hernandez about his interaction with the EMS paramedics who arrived on the scene in an effort to clarify the relationship between the complainant and appellant. The following exchange then occurred:
Finally, the prosecutor asked Officer Hernandez:
Amanda Black, an emergency medical technician from the La Marque Fire Department, was also dispatched to the scene. Once on the scene, Black observed the complainant with multiple lacerations on her face, as well as multiple contusions on her forehead. According to Black, the complainant told her that "her boyfriend beat her up." Later, during cross-examination, Black had the following exchange with appellant's attorney:
Earlier in that same cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:
The State sought to admit the complainant's medical records related to the incident. The medical records initially reflected a dating relationship between appellant and the complainant, but appellant lodged a hearsay objection to their admission. The following exchange then occurred at the bench:
Rather than wait for another witness, the State redacted all references to the relationship between appellant and the complainant, and the redacted documents were admitted into evidence.
Notwithstanding the very prominent cross-examination of the witnesses as to the basis of their knowledge of the dating relationship, and the inadmissibility of the medical record evidence as it relates to establishing the dating relationship, the State never called any other witnesses.
At the conclusion of the State's case, appellant moved for a directed verdict. Appellant argued that the State did not meet its burden to prove that a "dating relationship" existed between appellant and the complainant. The trial court denied appellant's motion. Appellant subsequently stipulated that he had previously been convicted of family violence assault. The jury found appellant guilty of felony assault against a family member. During the punishment phase of appellant's trial, the State offered evidence showing that appellant had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...whether there is sufficient evidence of a "dating relationship" between the accused and the complainant. PENAL § 22.01(b)(2); Edward v. State, 599 S.W.3d 69,75 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet. h.). There was no dispute at trial that appellant had been in dating relationships wi......
-
Edward v. State
...opinion,5 the Fourteenth Court of Appeals agreed and held the evidence was insufficient on this basis. Edward v. State , 599 S.W.3d 69, 76 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020). In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals rejected the State's argument that the jury could have relied on......