Evender Gene Jackson v. State
06-15-00151-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- Defendant Evender Gene Jackson Jr. was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. The document summarized is the appellant's brief seeking reversal.
- Victim Spencer Sweeden testified two African‑American men approached him; one allegedly beat him and the other brandished what appeared to be a sawed‑off shotgun and took belongings. Sweeden identified Jackson’s face but could not say which of the two men Jackson was (bicyclist vs. gunman).
- The State’s key witness, Eddie James Dean Jr., testified he and Jackson committed the robbery; Dean said he held the gun and Jackson struck the victim. Dean had been indicted for the same offense and was a convicted felon.
- Dean testified there was no prior plan, that he did not tell Jackson about the gun, and that he retrieved the gun only after the victim said he was armed. No evidence showed Jackson solicited, encouraged, or knew about the gun beforehand.
- Law‑enforcement officers found Jackson near the scene and observed stolen items on a car hood, but no witness testified Jackson possessed the items, wore the distinctive vest described by the victim, or rode the bicycle. The brief argues non‑accomplice evidence tying Jackson to the weapon/use is weak or absent.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct jury under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14 that accomplice testimony requires corroboration | Trial court erred by omitting accomplice‑witness instruction; Dean was an accomplice as a matter of law because he was indicted for the same offense | (Not in brief) State would likely argue either Dean was not an accomplice as a matter of law or that non‑accomplice evidence sufficiently corroborated Dean | N/A — appellant requests reversal; brief argues omission caused egregious harm |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request accomplice‑witness instruction | Trial counsel’s failure to request the instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced the defense because corroboration was lacking | (Not in brief) State would argue counsel’s choice was trial strategy and outcome would be same | N/A — appellant seeks reversal on Strickland grounds |
| Legal sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (party liability) | Evidence is legally insufficient; no proof Jackson used/exhibited a deadly weapon or encouraged its use; no agreement/conspiracy shown; accomplice testimony is uncorroborated | (Not in brief) State would argue jury could infer party liability from presence, actions, and Dean’s testimony | N/A — appellant asks court to reverse conviction for insufficiency |
| Requirement to disregard accomplice testimony when assessing corroboration under art. 38.14 | Accomplice testimony must be excluded and remaining evidence fails to connect Jackson to the offense | (Not in brief) State would argue remaining non‑accomplice evidence (victim ID, officers finding items nearby) tended to connect Jackson | N/A — appellant contends corroboration is lacking and conviction cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (caution about accomplice testimony and its incentives to lie)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (definition and treatment of accomplices; requirement to corroborate accomplice testimony)
- Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (trial court must instruct jury when a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law)
- Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (egregious‑harm standard for an unrequested jury charge omission)
- Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (analysis of corroborative evidence required by art. 38.14)
- Wooden v. State, 101 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (party liability and requirement to show intent to promote or assist aggravating conduct)