Story, Allan Latoi, PD-1626-15

Defendant Allan Latoi Story was tried for the fatal stabbing of Zachary Davis; a jury convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Two eyewitnesses (Joyce Akers and Rene Davis) testified about an earlier fight involving Story, Zachary, and Rene; accounts differed on whether the parties had separated before Story stabbed Zachary.
Officer Jason Ireland recorded an interview with Story 3–4 hours after the stabbing in which Story asserted he acted in self‑defense; the trial court excluded the recording as hearsay.
Story requested a jury instruction on self‑defense; the trial court denied the instruction, concluding the evidence did not show Story reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary when he stabbed Zachary.
On appeal, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Perkes, J.) affirmed: (1) exclusion of the recorded interview was proper because it was inadmissible self‑serving hearsay not necessary to rebut or correct State testimony; and (2) no self‑defense instruction was required because the evidence did not establish immediacy of a deadly‑force threat when the stabbing occurred.

Issue	Story (Appellant) Argument	State (Appellee) Argument	Held
Admissibility of Ireland recording	Recording impeaches State’s implication that Story and Rene concocted self‑defense weeks later and rebuts Officer Ireland’s claim Story was uncooperative; thus not offered for truth of matter asserted	Recording is hearsay/self‑serving; appellant failed to preserve some related theories on appeal; recording was not necessary to correct any misleading testimony	Exclusion affirmed: recording was inadmissible self‑serving hearsay and not shown necessary to correct or explain State’s evidence; appellant’s broader appellate theory preserved only in part
Entitlement to jury instruction on self‑defense	Rene Davis’s testimony (stick used, Story beaten while on ground) provides some evidence that Story reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary — therefore instruction required	Evidence shows parties had separated and Zachary walked away; no reasonable belief of immediate need for deadly force at the time Story stabbed him	Denial of self‑defense instruction affirmed: record lacked evidence that deadly force was immediately necessary at the moment of stabbing

Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court must view evidence in the light most favorable to defendant when deciding whether defensive issue was raised)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defensive issue is raised if some evidence exists on each element such that jury could rationally find it)
Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (proponent must specify on the record the hearsay exception or reason evidence is not hearsay to preserve appellate review)
Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (preservation requires informing trial court of specific grounds for admissibility so court can rule)
Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hafdahl v. State, 805 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (self‑serving out‑of‑court statements by a non‑testifying accused are generally inadmissible absent an exception)