Jovan Nathaniel Page v. State
02-17-00019-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On May 11, 2015, Jovan Nathaniel Page and Kenneth Roberts borrowed Jordan Warren’s handgun; Page later bragged he used it in a drug-related robbery that resulted in David (Charles) Gentry’s death.
- Cell‑tower data and witness Love placed Page, Roberts, and Love traveling between Warren’s and Gentry’s locations around 1:23 a.m.–2:04 a.m.; Love waited in the car while Page and Roberts entered Gentry’s home, and a gunshot was heard shortly after.
- Warren observed missing bullets from his gun after the incident and later turned the firearm over to police; forensic testing matched a shell casing from the scene and bullet fragments in Gentry’s skull to Warren’s gun.
- Multiple witnesses (Love, Warren, Warren’s wife) testified that Page and/or Roberts admitted Page shot Gentry; Page had previously sold his own gun to Gentry and shortly after the murder possessed two guns.
- Page was indicted for murder alleged to have occurred in the course of committing or attempting robbery; the jury was charged on party/co‑conspirator liability.
- The jury convicted Page of murder; on appeal he raised (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) nineteen challenges that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling general Texas Rule of Evidence 403 objections to various State exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Page) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support murder verdict | Evidence showed conspiracy to rob Gentry, borrowed gun matched shell/bullet fragments, admissions and cell data tie Page to the scene — supports conviction as principal or co‑conspirator | Argues State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense charged | Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient under Jackson to support murder conviction as principal or co‑conspirator |
| Admission of multiple State exhibits over Rule 403 objections | Exhibits were relevant and probative to show movements, admissions, and forensic link; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Argues trial court abused discretion by overruling Rule 403 objections and failed to perform required balancing | Affirmed: appellant’s general 403 objections were not specific enough to preserve error; no preserved abuse of discretion shown |
| Specificity required to preserve Rule 403 objections | N/A (State’s position implicit: objections lack specificity) | Objectioned generally under Rule 403 to many exhibits without identifying which of the five 403 grounds applied | Court held a general 403 objection without identifying the ground is insufficient to preserve error; Resendez and related precedent control |
| Objection that proper predicate was not laid for certain exhibits | N/A | Raises predicate objection on appeal for some exhibits | Not preserved: predicate objections not made at trial, so appellate review is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (evidence sufficient to support murder conviction)
- Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (evidence supporting conspiracy)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (specificity required to preserve Rule 403 objections)
- Checo v. State, 402 S.W.3d 440 (general Rule 403 objection insufficient to preserve error)
- Williams v. State, 930 S.W.2d 898 (same principle on Rule 403 preservation)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (binding precedent limiting sufficiency review scope)