Edward, Duke, PD-0325-20

Background

Appellant Duke Edward was convicted of third-degree felony assault after the State alleged he assaulted Maggie Bolden and that the offense was elevated because they were in a "dating relationship" under Tex. Fam. Code § 71.0021(b); Bolden did not testify at trial.
Officer Richard Hernandez responded to a 911 call, observed Bolden’s injuries, arrested Edward in a back bedroom, gave Bolden a family‑violence form, photographed injuries, and later testified Bolden called Edward her "boyfriend."
The body‑cam excerpt played for the jury showed parts of Hernandez’s contact with Bolden but did not include any statement in which Bolden called Edward her boyfriend; Hernandez acknowledged the admitted clip omitted portions of the interaction.
EMT Amanda Black testified the EMS report said Bolden called Edward her "boyfriend," but on voir dire admitted she had no independent recollection and that the report’s timing/source of that information was uncertain; references to the relationship in the report were ordered redacted.
The trial court denied a directed verdict, the jury convicted, and Edward received a 60‑year sentence. The 14th Court of Appeals reversed on sufficiency grounds—finding no evidence of a "dating relationship"—and reformed to misdemeanor assault; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and rejected the court of appeals’ ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Edward)	Held
Whether evidence is sufficient to prove a "dating relationship" under Tex. Fam. Code § 71.0021(b)	Bolden called Edward her "boyfriend" to first responders and circumstantial facts (alone in her apartment, found on her bed, completed family‑violence form) permit a rational jury to find a continuing romantic/intimate relationship	The proof was legally insufficient: the body‑cam did not show Bolden calling him her boyfriend, EMT testimony was hearsay/unreliable, and circumstantial facts only permit speculation	Court held evidence sufficient; jury could credit officer/EMT testimony and draw reasonable inferences to find a dating relationship
Whether the appellate court properly disregarded officer and EMT testimony because the played body‑cam excerpt did not contain the statements	The jury could reasonably credit officer/EMT testimony that Bolden identified Edward as her boyfriend despite omissions in the played footage	The missing statements in the admitted video impeach or negate the officers’ testimony, so such testimony cannot support the dating‑relationship element	Court held the appellate court erred to disregard that testimony; appellate review must defer to jury credibility resolutions
Whether circumstantial evidence alone can satisfy the "dating relationship" element	Circumstantial evidence (presence in bedroom, being alone, signed family‑violence form) combined with testimony supports inference of an intimate/romantic continuing relationship	Circumstantial evidence here is too thin—only permits speculation, not a rational inference of an ongoing romantic relationship	Court held circumstantial evidence, considered cumulatively and with deference to the jury, was sufficient to support the element

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (apply light-most-favorable-to-verdict standard)
Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (sufficiency review principles)
Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (factfinder may selectively believe testimony)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (inferences must be reasonable from cumulative evidence)
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (presume fact‑finder resolved conflicts in favor of verdict)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (measure sufficiency against hypothetically-correct jury charge)
Ramjattansingh v. State, 548 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (statutory definitions pled are elements for sufficiency review)
Geick v. State, 349 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (statutory definitions become elements when pled)
Edward v. State, 599 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (court of appeals decision reversed)
Childress v. State, 285 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (statute distinguishes dating relationship from casual acquaintanceship)
Granger v. State, 584 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019) (intermediate court treating "boyfriend/girlfriend" evidence as sufficient)