Boles v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Boles’s convictions, holding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support each conviction. It further held that the DFCS investigator who independently interviewed Boles was not acting as a law-enforcement agent, while any error concerning the second investigator’s interview was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements were cumulative of properly admitted evidence. The court also applied de novo review to the suppression issue because the relevant facts were undisputed.