Barnes, Jassen
PD-0044-15
Tex. App.Jan 16, 2015Background
- On July 22, 2011 Justin Thomas was shot and later died; witnesses placed appellant Jassen Barnes speaking with Thomas before gunshots and fleeing the scene in a white Kia owned by Brittney (Brittney Smiley).
- Brittney Smiley received full immunity and testified (an accomplice witness) that Barnes admitted shooting Thomas; she also testified both she (.22) and Barnes (larger "cop gun") had guns that day.
- Non‑accomplice witnesses testified they heard gunshots, saw Barnes in a blue shirt near Thomas, and saw a white car leave, but none saw the shooting or Barnes with a gun; Barnes’s fingerprints were found on Smiley’s car.
- Forensic evidence: .40 caliber shell casing and bullet fragments consistent with a .40 Glock/Smith & Wesson were recovered; .22 bullets were found in Smiley’s car and could not have been the murder weapon.
- Barnes was convicted of murder and sentenced to life; on appeal he argued (1) insufficiency/corroboration of accomplice testimony, (2) evidentiary errors, (3) trial‑court error denying new trial (Brady, courtroom closure, denied live testimony), and (4) spousal privilege issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barnes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / corroboration of accomplice testimony (Art. 38.14) | Smiley was the only witness who identified Barnes as shooter; non‑accomplices merely show presence and thus did not corroborate — conviction should be reversed and rendered. | Non‑accomplice evidence (identifications, presence, fingerprints on Smiley's car, flight in Smiley's car, forensic link to a .40‑caliber like Barnes described) tends to connect Barnes to the crime. | Affirmed: excluding Smiley, remaining evidence "tends to connect" Barnes to the offense; corroboration and legal sufficiency satisfied. |
| Admissibility of photos of .22 bullets (Rule 403) | Photos were prejudicial and intended only to inflame jury against Barnes and Smiley. | Photos rebut defense theory that Smiley (a .22) was the shooter; forensic evidence shows murder weapon was .40, so .22 evidence is probative. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice. |
| Prosecutor comment on defendant's refusal to testify | (Claimed on appeal) The prosecutor improperly commented on Barnes's refusal to testify. | The trial objection below was for argumentativeness, not a comment on refusal to testify; remarks did not refer to evidence only the defendant could produce. | No reversible error: complaint not preserved; alternatively, statement not a comment on the right to remain silent. |
| Spousal / informal‑marriage privilege for Smiley | Smiley and Barnes were informally married; she therefore had privilege not to testify for the State. | Evidence was contradictory; Smiley failed to meet burden to prove an informal marriage by preponderance. | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion rejecting informal marriage claim. |
| Motion for new trial: Brady (impeachment), courtroom closure, denial of live testimony | (1) State failed to disclose impeachment evidence (post‑trial motion to adjudicate based on drug admissions). (2) Barnes's stepfather was prevented from attending trial. (3) Court improperly limited new‑trial hearing to affidavits, denying live testimony. | (1) Motion to adjudicate was based on calls and arose after trial; State did not possess impeachment info at time of testimony. (2) Record shows no judicial action to exclude public; conflicting affidavits existed. (3) Trial court may resolve new‑trial motion on affidavits; oral testimony not required. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — no Brady suppression shown, no proven closure of the trial, and ruling on affidavits alone was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecutor duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Sup. Ct.) (Brady includes favorable impeachment evidence)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for closing a courtroom/public‑trial right)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Jackson sufficiency review framework)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App.) (public‑trial analysis and requirement to consider alternatives)