Freeman v. State
352 S.W.3d 77
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Robbery occurred at a Pasadena convenience store around 10:30–11:00 p.m. on Nov. 29, 2007, committed by three masked Black men; store employees testified to the robbery and fled scene; police pursued and detained suspects who fled into a wooded area; later three men, including Freeman, were found asleep in Coleman/Roberts’ apartment with physical evidence (muddy clothes, gun, cloth pieces) linking to the crime; Coleman and Roberts testified against Freeman while pleading guilty; Freeman did not request or object to an accomplice-witness instruction; he was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 20 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accomplice-witness instruction required? | Freeman | State | Yes; error required instruction on corroboration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (defines accomplice and need for corroboration)
- Nolley v. State, 5 S.W.3d 850 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (accomplice testimony must be corroborated)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (accomplice-witness rule applies when accomplices are indicted)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (accomplice-witness instruction required when evidence raises issue)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (instruction required as statutory duty; harm standard if not requested)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (harm standard for unobjected instructional error)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (egregious-harm standard for accomplice instruction)