Allan Latoi Story v. State
13-14-00038-CR
Tex. App.May 4, 2015Background
- Allan Latoi Story was tried in McLennan County for the murder of Zachary Davis; a jury convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts: some (Joyce Akers) testified Story grabbed the victim and later stabbed him after the fight; others (Rene Davis) testified Story did not choke her and was on the ground being beaten by Zachary and Rene when he was stabbed.
- Waco PD Officer Jason Ireland arrested Story about 3–4 hours after the incident, interviewed and recorded a ~17-minute statement in which Story said he was jumped and defended himself and referenced a hammer and knives at the scene.
- The defense sought to admit the recorded interview to (1) rebut Officer Ireland’s testimony that Story was uncooperative at arrest and (2) show Story asserted self-defense shortly after the incident (contradicting the State’s impeachment theory that the defense was concocted weeks later). The trial court excluded the tape as hearsay and irrelevant.
- The defense also requested a jury instruction on self-defense; the trial court initially considered it but ultimately refused, reasoning no witness directly testified Story reasonably believed deadly force was necessary. Defense objected and preserved error.
Issues
| Issue | Story's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded police interview (3–4 hrs post-incident) | The tape was relevant and non-hearsay because offered to show what was said (impeachment, chronology of assertion of self-defense), not to prove truth of events | Tape is hearsay and would circumvent defendant’s right to testify; State strategically declined to play it | Trial court excluded the tape (error argued on appeal) |
| Rebuttal of officer’s testimony about defendant’s cooperation at arrest | Tape shows Story cooperated/talked soon after arrest, rebutting officer’s claim of uncooperativeness used to imply guilt | Admission would permit jury to hear out-of-court assertions and infer facts; improper hearsay | Trial court sustained hearsay and relevance objections, excluding tape |
| Timing of assertion of self-defense (impeachment of State’s theory of concoction) | Tape shows Story asserted self-defense hours after incident, rebutting State’s impeachment through jail-visit testimony implying later fabrication | Admission would let jury hear Story’s statements without Story testifying | Trial court excluded tape; defense argues that exclusion prejudiced jury’s assessment of witness credibility |
| Jury instruction on self-defense | Defense entitlement to instruction: evidence (being beaten by two adults, use of stick) raised reasonable belief of immediate need to use deadly force; instruction required even if evidence weak or contradicted | Court found no direct testimony proving Story reasonably believed deadly force necessary; denied instruction | Trial court refused self-defense instruction (error preserved); defense argues reversal required due to harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (extrajudicial statements offered to show what was said and to explain investigative steps are not hearsay)
- Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defense is raised if some evidence from any source supports each element; courts must view evidence in light most favorable to defendant)
- Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review views evidence in favor of requested defensive submission)
- Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (out-of-court statements may be admitted non-hearsay to show how a defendant became a suspect)
- Alonzo v. State, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State bears burden to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt once defensive issue is raised)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standards for harm review on jury-charge error)
- Cornet v. State, 417 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (omission of a defensive instruction is generally harmful because it eliminates the defendant’s defense)