Anderson, Rodney Young
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1744
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Anderson was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (4–200 g) and aggravated assault of a public servant; convicted on both counts; 40-year term for possession and life for aggravated assault.
- Evidence showed Anderson and Sherber sold meth to Harmon, with Harmon signaling undercover officers; Sherber attempted to flee, struck vehicles, and an officer was injured; Anderson was shot but arrested.
- Police recovered meth in Sherber's truck and on the ground; quantities suggested distribution beyond personal use; Anderson had prior sales to Harmon and cash on arrest.
- Court of Appeals held that Anderson could be convicted under the conspiracy theory of the law of parties (7.02(b)) for aggravated assault based on foreseeability of violence by a co-conspirator.
- Texas Supreme Court granted review to determine if the evidence was legally sufficient under the conspiracy theory; court held the evidence was sufficient and affirmed the court of appeals.
- The analysis focused on whether the second felony (aggravated assault) was reasonably foreseeable within the conspiracy to distribute meth; the totality of circumstances supported foreseeability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports aggravated assault under 7.02(b) conspiracy theory | Anderson should not be liable; he did not anticipate the assault | Should have anticipated violence as a consequence of conspiracy | Yes; evidence supported foreseeability under conspiracy theory |
| Whether an explicit ‘should have anticipated’ instruction was required in the application paragraph | Charge lacked anticipated-language, undermining sufficiency | Hypothetically correct charge governs sufficiency even if missing | No; sufficiency analyzed under totality of circumstances and hypothetical charge; still sufficient |
| Standard for assessing sufficiency under conspiracy liability (Pinkerton framework) | Law of parties requires actual anticipation by conspirator | Foreseeability suffices under 7.02(b) | Adopt Pinkerton foreseeability approach; totality of circumstances supports conviction |
| Scope of evidence—quantity, money, and relationship supporting foreseeability | Parameters show a large-scale operation | Operations were not large-scale; foreseeability weak | Evidence supported foreseeability given drug volumes, repeat transactions, and ongoing enterprise |
Key Cases Cited
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge governs sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (juries may infer from evidence; no speculative leaps)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 645 (U.S. Supreme Court 1946) (co-conspirator liability for reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of the conspiracy)
- United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479 (5th Cir. 1995) (foreseeability linked to drug operation scale under Pinkerton)
- Gutierrez v. United States, 978 F.2d 1468 (1st Cir. 1992) (weighs weapon foreseeability in drug conspiracies)