Bobby Joe Evens v. State
06-15-00079-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Appellant Bobby Joe Evens was indicted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4g–200g); tried by jury and sentenced to life after the jury found two enhancement paragraphs true.
- The charged delivery allegedly occurred November 9, 2010 at a NAT 24 gas station in Greenville, Texas.
- Key witnesses: Investigator Warren Mitchell (observed a meeting between Evens and Robert Lewis Smith Jr.), Robert Smith (testified he bought crack from Evens and intended to resell half), Officer Will Cole (stopped Evens shortly after the meeting and found $1,030 on him).
- State introduced a recorded admission (SX 22) in which Evens admitted dealing drugs in Greenville between Feb. 2010 and Sept. 2011.
- Appellant’s appellate arguments: (1) the trial court erred by failing to give an unrequested Article 38.14 accomplice-witness instruction because Smith was an accomplice; (2) the non-accomplice evidence was legally insufficient to corroborate Smith’s accomplice testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Evens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Robert Smith was an accomplice and an Art. 38.14 instruction was required | Smith’s testimony identified him as buyer, but State would argue his testimony was admissible and the jury could weigh credibility | Smith was an accomplice because he participated in the transaction and could have been indicted; omission of the Art. 38.14 instruction caused egregious harm | Appellant contends omission was harmful; (record reflects appellant preserved argument on appeal; outcome to be decided by appellate court) |
| 2) Whether non-accomplice evidence legally corroborated accomplice testimony | Non-accomplice evidence (observations of meeting, cash on Evens, admission of prior dealing) supports conviction | Non-accomplice evidence is too weak—meeting at a gas station, cash amount, and prior admissions do not tend to connect Evens to this specific delivery | Appellant argues evidence insufficient to corroborate; (appellate court must review sufficiency under Jackson/Simmons standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for "egregious harm" when no timely objection was made at trial)
- Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explains when omission of Art. 38.14 instruction is egregious harm — corroboration must be so unconvincing that the State's case is clearly less persuasive without accomplice testimony)
- Holladay v. State, 709 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (accomplice testimony is inherently suspicious and requires corroboration)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence — whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for sufficiency of corroboration of accomplice testimony: non-accomplice evidence must "tend to connect" the defendant to the offense)