Boston, Ronald Glen
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1489
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Boston convicted of aggravated robbery; sentence 55 years.
- Third Court of Appeals affirmed; discretionary review granted to address whether victim was threatened or placed in fear despite no perceived threat.
- Victim Rosalee Johnson, 83, Shell clerk, witnessed robbery by Boston and Hemphill; Hemphill briefly displayed a firearm but Johnson did not see it during the robbery.
- Hemphill's conduct included placing a firearm on the counter and grabbing cash from the register while Boston watched; both fled.
- Johnson testified she was upset and feared injury, and that she would not have pursued the robbers if she knew they possessed a firearm.
- Court framed the question: whether the evidence supports a finding that the victim was threatened or placed in fear, even if she did not perceive the threat at the moment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does robbery by placing in fear require victim perception of a threat? | Boston argues no; threat need not be perceived. | State contends perception can be inferred from threatening conduct. | Affirmed: rational jury could infer threat and perception. |
| Can conduct by a co-actor (Hemphill) create threats under the law of parties even if victim doesn’t see a firearm? | Boston contends no required perception by victim. | State argues implicit threat from conduct suffices. | Affirmed: threat perceived from conduct; endorses law-of-parties liability. |
| Is it sufficient that threatening conduct places victim in fear even if the victim did not firsthand perceive the weapon? | Boston argues no direct perception, so no placing in fear. | State asserts fear may arise from threatening actions regardless of perception. | Affirmed: jury could infer fear from threatening conduct and perception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (robbery-by-placing-in-fear does not require the victim to see the weapon; awareness of likelihood to place in fear suffices)
- Olivas v. State, 203 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (threatening does not always require perception; placing in fear requires perception; context matters)
- Cranford v. State, 377 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (victim's fear must arise from the defendant's actions; timidity of victim irrelevant)
- Green v. State, 567 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (early guidance on threat/placing in fear elements)
- Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (context of threat and fear in assault/robbery analyses)