Detective Justin Irvin testifies about May 8 assault; state says investigation supports aggravated robbery and assault charges

Detective Justin Irvin of the San Antonio Police Department testified Tuesday in 187th District Court about a May 8 incident in the 200 block of North San Felipe that left a man with head and facial injuries.

Irvin, a detective assigned to SAPD’s Robbery Task Force, said he interviewed neighborhood witnesses, the injured man and a person later identified as a suspect; reviewed body-worn-camera footage; and submitted his investigation to prosecutors, saying, “I believe that he committed aggravated robbery.”

The testimony was part of the state’s direct examination of Irvin, who described the follow-up procedure after his unit received the case, the witnesses he contacted and the evidence he reviewed. He told the court he was assigned the follow-up investigation on May 8 and that two nearby residents—identified in the reports as Adelina Jimenez and Samuel Diaz—were among the witnesses he interviewed. Irvin said he later interviewed the injured man the following day at University Hospital and reviewed photographs of the victim’s injuries, including a laceration that had been stapled and an area above the eye that was covered.

Irvin described looking for surveillance footage, but told the court the neighborhood residents did not have usable video of the incident. He said the initial police report named a suspect and that he conducted a photo identification with the complaining witness. Irvin also testified that an arrest warrant had been secured before he later interviewed the person taken into custody.

On the subject of weapons and injuries, Irvin testified that the defendant in his interview said a bottle had been used and also described use of a blunt object; on whether those items could cause serious bodily injury, the detective said in his training and experience they can. He said the victim reported eye injuries; defense objections sustained when the state tried to elicit medical conclusions from the detective.

Irvin testified the complainant asserted that a black-and-green bicycle belonged to him and that the complainant identified the defendant as the person who had it. On cross-examination the defense highlighted that the complainant never saw the property taken and that no phone or other property reported missing had been recovered or forensically located by law enforcement. Irvin acknowledged law enforcement had not pinged the missing phone and that the phone’s whereabouts were unknown.

The detective said he used a body-worn camera in the custodial interview and that State’s Exhibit 13—a recording or related item—was his and was admitted into evidence. He also testified he submitted the investigative file for prosecution and that, after reviewing statements and evidence, he believed aggravated robbery had been committed and earlier had investigated aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Following testimony and objections during cross-examination over questions that touched on medical diagnosis and hearsay, the court excused Irvin. The state then rested its case; the defense rested as well, and the judge set a schedule for jury instructions and closing arguments the following day.

Courtroom proceedings ended with the judge instructing jurors to return at 9:30 a.m. the next day for the reading of the charge and closings. No verdict was reached during the testimony reported here.