Background
Kevin Sabbs was convicted of first-degree murder for the August 5, 2018 death of Robin Boler, his ex-girlfriend. Boler’s body was discovered in her bathtub, her hands bound with ligatures. At the time of her death, Sabbs was in a dating relationship with her and living in her apartment. On August 1, 2018—approximately four days before the body was discovered—Sabbs arrived at Boler’s apartment to retrieve his belongings while preparing to move in with another girlfriend. Boler’s best friend was present during this visit because Boler believed Sabbs intended to take her large television, which she had purchased during tax season and considered valuable, and she wanted a witness to prevent the removal.
Sabbs was sentenced to 40 years in prison following a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s admission of (1) other crimes evidence relating to prior domestic violence incidents, (2) the victim’s statements regarding the television, and (3) objections to the State’s closing arguments. The core dispute centered on whether evidence of Sabbs choking the victim on Mother’s Day 2018—nearly three months before her death—should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial, particularly given that the medical examiner’s cause-of-death finding was listed as “homicide by unspecified means” rather than definitively strangulation.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed Sabbs’s conviction and 40-year sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The court held that the trial court properly admitted testimony from the victim’s mother regarding the Mother’s Day 2018 incident in which Sabbs choked the victim into unconsciousness. This evidence was admissible to prove motive, intent, and propensity to commit domestic violence. The court determined that while the medical examiner could not definitively conclude strangulation as the cause of death, asphyxiation could not be ruled out, and the State’s expert was prepared to testify that the death was consistent with asphyxiation from the perpetrator’s hands. The court further noted that Sabbs’s DNA was recovered from ligatures binding the victim’s body.
On the television evidence, the appellate court upheld admission of the victim’s statements regarding her belief that the television was hers and her concern that Sabbs would attempt to take it. The court found this evidence admissible not to establish ownership but to demonstrate the victim’s state of mind and Sabbs’s motive—establishing that a dispute over property could have precipitated the confrontation that resulted in her death. The court emphasized that the probative value of the other crimes evidence was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice under the applicable evidentiary standard.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of prior domestic violence between the same parties is admissible in murder prosecutions to establish motive and intent, even when separated in time by several months.
- A victim’s statements about a defendant’s intent to remove property can be admissible to show motive, without requiring proof of actual ownership disputes.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in admitting other crimes evidence, and appellate courts will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion—a high standard requiring the trial court’s ruling to be arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.
- Inconclusive cause-of-death findings do not necessarily preclude admission of other crimes evidence when the State presents expert testimony establishing consistency with the theory of death proposed at trial.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for prosecutors pursuing domestic violence homicides, as it confirms that evidence of prior assaults by the same defendant on the same victim is admissible to establish motive and intent—a crucial basis for establishing guilt in circumstantial murder cases. The ruling also illustrates the court’s willingness to admit evidence of prior strangulation attempts even when the victim’s cause of death remains somewhat ambiguous, provided expert testimony supports consistency. For defense practitioners, the decision reinforces the steep burden required to exclude such evidence: the probative value must be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, a standard that strongly favors admissibility when the evidence logically connects to motive or intent.
The decision further clarifies that victim statements about the defendant’s intentions regarding property can constitute admissible evidence of motive, as they demonstrate the source of conflict that may have motivated the crime. This has practical implications in cases where financial disputes, property disputes, or resource conflicts precede violence, expanding prosecutors’ ability to establish motive through the victim’s contemporaneous perceptions rather than objective ownership determinations.