Bruce Wayne Harkey v. State, 03-14-00734-CR

Background

Appellant Bruce Wayne Harkey was indicted for capital murder (two victims) and convicted by jury; death penalty waived and sentenced to life without parole. Appeal filed contesting sufficiency and evidentiary rulings.
The State's case centered on accomplices Carl Pressley and Lillian King, who admitted killing Karen Johnson and Bonnie Harkey and implicated Harkey. Under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14, accomplice testimony requires independent corroboration.
The State introduced non‑accomplice evidence the defense says was relied on for corroboration: Harkey’s hostile statements about Bonnie Harkey, phone records showing limited contacts, a witness who heard money changed between Pressley and Harkey, and testimony that Harkey solicited others to kill third parties.
The prosecution also introduced multiple extraneous‑acts witnesses: a jailhouse witness (Pat Pierce) who said Harkey offered a motorcycle to have people killed (including an untimely allegation that Bonnie was the target), and prior uncharged solicitations/plans to kill Harkey’s ex‑wives (witnesses David Rube, Hank Powell, Ranger Linderman).
Appellant’s brief argues (1–2) accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated as to either murder; (3) the trial court erred admitting extraneous‑act evidence (Rule 404(b) and Rule 403) because it was propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial; (4) the State failed to give notice of one particularly prejudicial extraneous act (offer to kill Bonnie), violating the notice requirement of Rule 404(b).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harkey)	Held (trial court / posture)
1. Sufficiency of corroboration for murder of Karen Johnson	Pressley and King were corroborated by non‑accomplice evidence (money exchange, phone records, Harkey’s hostile statements, other acts)	Corroboration is legally insufficient — non‑accomplice proof only shows association/hostility, not connection to these murders; accomplice testimony must be independently tied to the offense	Trial court admitted the evidence and jury convicted Harkey; appellant preserving issue for appeal
2. Sufficiency of corroboration for murder of Bonnie Harkey	Same corroboration suffices for the Bonnie Harkey murder	Same insufficiency; independent evidence fails to tend to connect Harkey to Bonnie’s murder	Same (conviction; appellate challenge)
3. Admissibility of extraneous acts (solicitations to kill others) under Rules 404(b)/403	Extraneous acts are admissible to show motive, intent, plan, or continuing scheme; limited‑purpose instructions were given	Evidence was character/propensity evidence, not relevant to motive/plan for these specific murders; highly prejudicial and should have been excluded under 403 and 404(b)	Trial court admitted the extraneous acts for limited purposes over defense objections; Harkey objects and appeals
4. Notice of intent to introduce extraneous act that Harkey offered a motorcycle to kill Bonnie	State contends prior notice covered extraneous testimony generally	Defense: State did not give reasonable advance notice that Pierce would identify Bonnie specifically as the target—this was surprise and violated 404(b) notice rule	Trial court overruled the lack‑of‑notice objection and admitted the testimony; Harkey preserved the issue for appeal

Key Cases Cited

Paulus v. State, 633 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. Crim. App.) (accomplice testimony rule and need for corroboration)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treating accomplice testimony with distrust)
Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. Crim. App.) (test for sufficiency: exclude accomplice testimony, then ask whether remaining evidence tends to connect defendant)
Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (404(b)/403 framework and balancing for extraneous‑acts evidence)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948) (policy against using character‑conformity evidence in prosecution’s case‑in‑chief)