Torey Boykin v. State
05-13-00839-CR
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- Valentine was robbed at gunpoint around 7:20 a.m. on June 19, 2012; he surrendered headphones, cell phone, and a backpack with house key, Lakers’ cap, socks, and flip-flops.
- Haley testified he was approached by a black man and a white man asking to borrow his phone around 7:00–7:05 a.m., and linked that incident to Valentine’s robbery about fifteen minutes away by bike.
- Police traced Valentine’s cell data to Sang Shi “Connor” Lee, who testified he saw an ad for the headphones and sold the phone later to a black man and a white man.
- An undercover officer purchased the advertised headphones; the headphones’ serial number matched Valentine’s headphones, and Boykin, Rosenberg, and a third man were arrested with the headphones.
- Valentine’s backpack, house key, and Lakers’ cap were found in a shed behind Rosenberg’s house where Boykin stayed; Boykin gave inconsistent explanations for possession of the headphones.
- Boykin admitted riding bicycles with Rosenberg on June 19, 2012 and approaching a “kid” with a phone, but denied involvement in the robbery; he argued the evidence was insufficient and challenged the juvenile delinquency judgment and certain statements as improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery | Boykin asserts inconsistencies in descriptions and lack of direct evidence | State contends circumstantial evidence suffices | Evidence supports conviction; rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of juvenile delinquency judgment | Judgment was improperly admitted due to lack of proper admonishments | Record insufficient to show preservation of error or admonishments | Issue resolved against Boykin; judgment properly admitted or no preserved error |
| Admission of statements attributed to Rosenberg during interview | Statements were hearsay and violated confrontation rights | Statements irrelevant to truth; admissible to show reaction; confrontation satisfied by Taylor’s testimony | Statements not hearsay for truth; did not violate Confrontation Clause; Taylor available for cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard; reasonable juror could convict on cumulative evidence)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence and credibility)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for guilt)
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (weight and credibility of testimony; jury deference)
- Adames v. State, 353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for evaluating credibility in circumstantial cases)
- Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (deference to jury on credibility; weight of evidence)
- Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (non-truthful use of out-of-court statements; confrontation scope)
- Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (out-of-court statements offered for non-truth relevance not hearsay)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (non-hearsay use of statements during interrogation)
- Parker v. State, 192 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (non-truth evidence; hearsay exception analysis)