Adrian Barrera v. State
13-13-00349-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 27, 2015Background
- Adrian Barrera appeals his murder conviction and files a reply brief urging acquittal or a new trial and resentencing on several grounds.
- Three co-defendants were indicted for the same murder; their status as accomplices is central to the appeal.
- The State dismissed or otherwise altered charges against some co-defendants after indictment and before or during trial, and those witnesses then testified against Barrera.
- Appellant contends the indictment itself made those witnesses accomplices as a matter of law and therefore required the jury to receive an accomplice-witness instruction and to be alerted to the need for corroboration.
- The State argues that dismissal of charges removes accomplice status (relying on Smith v. State); appellant replies that Smith did not resolve that question and that allowing the State to dismiss charges to "sanitize" witnesses undermines the accomplice-witness rule.
- Appellant also contends error was preserved by requesting an accomplice instruction and seeks either acquittal for insufficient corroboration or reversal/remand for retrial and resentencing on other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether indictment-plus-later-dismissal still renders a witness an accomplice as a matter of law | Barrera: Indictment charging the witness for the same offense makes them an accomplice; the State cannot defeat the rule by later dismissing charges to obtain testimony | State: Dismissal/abandonment before testimony removes accomplice status (invoking Smith) | Not decided by this brief; appellant urges the court to hold indictment status controls and to remedy error (acquittal or new trial) |
| 2. Whether requesting an accomplice-witness instruction preserved error | Barrera: Requesting the instruction was sufficient to preserve error; trial court was obliged to charge if any basis existed | State: Defense failed to preserve error by not framing the instruction precisely (e.g., requiring jury to first find accomplice status) | Not decided in this brief; appellant argues error was preserved and requests reversal/remand |
| 3. Sufficiency of corroborating evidence given accomplice testimony | Barrera: If accomplice testimony is uncorroborated, conviction requires acquittal | State: Impliedly contends sufficient corroboration exists or accomplice rule inapplicable if witnesses not accomplices | Not decided in this brief; appellant seeks acquittal for insufficient corroboration |
| 4. Other trial errors (jury strikes, Rule 605 functional-equivalent testimony, sentencing) | Barrera: Various procedural errors (improper juror strikes, Rule 605 issues) require reversal or remand for resentencing | State: Defends trial process and rulings (responded in its brief) | Not decided in this brief; appellant requests reversal/remand on multiple issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (indictment for same offense can render witness an accomplice as a matter of law)
- Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (discussing accomplice-witness rule and when instruction is required)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (addressed accomplice-witness issues but did not resolve whether pretestimony dismissal removes accomplice status)
- Herrera v. State, 27 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (earlier precedent on accomplice witness principles)
- Chastain v. State, 260 S.W. 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924) (historical authority on accomplice witness treatment)