Evens, Bobby Joe, PD-1345-15

Background

On Nov. 9, 2010 Greenville police observed Bobby Joe Evens and Robert Lewis Smith at a convenience store; shortly thereafter Smith returned to a nearby sedan and officers suspected a drug sale.
Police stopped both vehicles; search of Evens' truck produced $1,030 in cash (including at least $200 in twenties); search of Smith's car produced about 5.63 grams of crack cocaine.
Smith testified at trial that he bought seven grams of crack from Evens for $200 and intended to resell half in another county.
The State introduced a transcript of Evens’ prior federal testimony in which Evens admitted prior drug sales in the Greenville area and recalled the stop while possessing over $1,000.
A jury convicted Evens of possession with intent to deliver (4–200 grams); the trial court sentenced him to life. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed; Evens sought discretionary review raising challenges to sufficiency of evidence, alleged guilt-by-association, weight/amount for manufacture, and omission of accomplice/accomplice-witness jury instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Evens)	Held
Was Smith an accomplice requiring an accomplice-witness instruction and corroboration?	Smith was a buyer, not an accomplice; no instruction required; corroboration analysis unnecessary.	Smith was an accomplice (accomplice/jailhouse informant); omission of instruction and lack of corroboration required reversal.	Court held Smith was not an accomplice as a matter of law; no accomplice instruction required and corroboration analysis not required.
Was the evidence sufficient to connect Evens to the drugs found in Smith's car?	The State relied on Smith’s testimony, Evens’ prior admissions, observed meeting, and possession of cash to connect Evens to the offense.	Evens argued insufficient affirmative links: meeting + proximity + cash are consistent with innocent explanations; conviction rests on guilt-by-association.	Court concluded evidence supporting Evens’ conviction was adequate given buyer testimony and Evens’ prior admissions.
Did the amount of cocaine (≈5.63 g) support an intent-to-deliver/manufacture charge rather than personal use?	Expert and witness testimony placed typical street sales at 7 grams for $200; Smith said he bought 7 grams for resale.	Evens argued 5.63 g is consistent with personal use; additional corroboration required to infer intent.	Court accepted testimony that amounts sold (and Smith’s admission of intent to resell) supported the intent-to-deliver charge.
Was introduction of the $1,030 cash prejudicial or improperly used to prove drug proceeds/guilt-by-association?	Cash, observed arrangement, and context supported inference of drug dealing; admissible as circumstantial evidence.	Evens argued cash was unrelated, lawfully possessed, and its admission prejudiced jury (pretextual arrest/search).	Court treated cash as admissible circumstantial evidence in the context of other evidence; no reversible error found on that basis.

Key Cases Cited

Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defining accomplice as one who takes affirmative action promoting the charged offense)
Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidence must support charging the witness with the same offense to be an accomplice)
Kunkle v. State, 771 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App.) (one who cannot be prosecuted for the same offense is not an accomplice witness)
Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App.) (analysis whether accomplice instruction required is case- and fact-specific)
Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App.) (corroboration of accomplice testimony must only tend to connect defendant to offense)