Bobby Joe Evens v. State, 476 S.W.3d 743

Police observed Smith exit a sedan, briefly enter Evens’ parked truck, then return to the sedan; officers suspected a drug transaction and stopped both vehicles.
A search of Evens’ truck recovered $1,030 in cash (including at least $200 in $20 bills); a search of Smith’s car recovered crack cocaine (~5–7 grams).
Smith testified he bought seven grams of crack from Evens for $200 and intended to resell half; Smith testified for the State at Evens’ trial.
The State introduced Evens’ prior federal testimony admitting prior drug distribution in Greenville, selling typical 3.5g and 7g quantities, and having over $1,000 when stopped.
Evens was convicted of possession with intent to deliver >4g but <200g of crack and sentenced to life under enhancement; on appeal he argued the trial court erred by failing to give an accomplice-witness instruction and that Smith’s testimony lacked required corroboration.
The court held Smith was not an accomplice as a matter of law because he did not take affirmative action to promote Evens’ charged offense; therefore no accomplice instruction or corroboration analysis was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith was an accomplice witness requiring accomplice-witness instruction	Evens: Smith was an accomplice (buyer) whose testimony required an accomplice instruction	State: Smith was merely a buyer, did not promote Evens’ charged offense, so not an accomplice	Court: Smith was not an accomplice as a matter of law; no instruction required
Whether Smith’s testimony required corroboration under the accomplice rule	Evens: If Smith is an accomplice, his testimony must be corroborated	State: If Smith is not an accomplice, accomplice corroboration is unnecessary	Court: Because Smith is not an accomplice, corroboration requirement need not be analyzed

Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (defines accomplice and discusses when instruction is required)
Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (accomplice must take affirmative action that promotes charged offense)
Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (evidence must support charging witness with the same offense)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (complicity in a different offense does not make one an accomplice to the charged offense)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (one is not an accomplice witness if he cannot be prosecuted for the same offense)
Korell v. State, 253 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (no fact question where no evidence of aiding or encouraging charged offense)
Hoffman v. State, 70 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934) (buyer-only involvement does not make one an accomplice of seller)
Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (corroborating evidence need only tend to connect defendant to offense)