Background

• Gaston was charged with robbing two Angleton convenience stores in February 2008; T&M Grocery and E-Z Food Mart.
• Video shows a single masked offender in black; clerks could not identify him; small gun and roughly $2,000 reportedly stolen in the second robbery.
• Hall testified as an accomplice-witness, describing coordination of both robberies and that Gaston used a .38 revolver and wore black clothing.
• Crystal Nelson and Lavetta Williams provided the non-accomplice corroboration: Williams testified Gaston sold her a gun resembling the one seen on video; Nelson testified about lending her car and Gaston paying her with a wad of cash.
• The jury convicted Gaston for the E-Z Food Mart robbery but acquitted him of the T&M Grocery aggravated robbery; on appeal, the sufficiency of corroboration under Article 38.14 was challenged.
• The court reverses and renders acquittal due to insufficient corroboration tending to connect Gaston to the offense.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Nolley v. State, 5 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (accomplice testimony must be corroborated)
• Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001) (accomplice-witness corroboration requires connecting evidence)
• Walker v. State, 615 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (accomplice testimony cannot convict without corroboration)
• Knox v. State, 934 S.W.2d 678 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (corroboration need only tend to connect, not prove guilt)
• Killough v. State, 718 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (comparison of corroboration to 'wad of money' scenario)
• Cockrum v. State, 758 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (unemployment and money evidence must be tied to offense; distinguishable facts)
• Umsted v. State, 435 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Crim.App.1968) (strong suspicion alone is insufficient for corroboration)