Allan Latoi Story v. State
13-14-00038-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 15, 2015Background
- Defendant Allan Latoi Story was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing victim Zachary Davis to death; jury returned guilty verdict and assessed life imprisonment on penalty-phase enhancements.
- Incident: a physical altercation at an apartment; witnesses gave conflicting accounts — one (Rene Davis) said Davis struck Story first to protect Rene; another (Joyce Akers) testified Story grabbed Rene by the throat and then stabbed Davis several times with a knife.
- Police arrested Story 3–4 hours after the stabbing; officers recorded an interview with Story in a patrol car shortly after arrest.
- At trial the court excluded the recorded interview (Defense Exhibit 1) as hearsay and irrelevant; defense sought admission under Tex. R. Evid. 107 (optional completeness) and for impeachment purposes.
- Defense requested a jury instruction on self-defense; the court denied the instruction, concluding the evidence did not show Story reasonably believed deadly force was necessary (the victim’s initial punch was found to be a lawful defense of another).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Story) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded post-arrest interview | Recording was hearsay/self-serving and not admissible; no partial statement by State triggered Rule 107; not proper impeachment | Recording admissible under Rule 107 (optional completeness) and to impeach testimony about cooperation with police | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the recording as hearsay and irrelevant; admission denied |
| Jury instruction on self-defense | Evidence showed victim acted to defend his sister, so Story’s use of deadly force was not justified; no legal right to deadly force instruction | Requested self-defense instruction warranted by Rene’s testimony that Davis struck Story first | Court properly refused self-defense instruction because evidence showed Davis lawfully used force to defend another and no reasonable belief in necessity of deadly force was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for reviewing discretionary evidentiary rulings)
- Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (scope of Rule 107 optional completeness)
- Villa v. State, 417 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant must admit elements to obtain confession-and-avoidance defense instruction)
- Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defensive instruction required when evidence raises issue, regardless of credibility)
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (when statutory defenses must be submitted if raised by evidence)
- Hafdahl v. State, 805 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (self-serving declarations are hearsay)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (requirements for jury charge on elements and defenses)
- Jones v. State, 843 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (limitations on admitting hearsay statements for non-hearsay purposes)
- Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (optional completeness and res gestae-related limitations on admitting a defendant’s out-of-court statements)