Gonzalez v. State
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6996
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez was found guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly-weapon finding and prior felony conviction enhancements.
- Swarthout was an accomplice witness as a matter of law, but the trial court did not give an accomplice-witness corroboration instruction.
- Wilson testified to the robbery; Swarthout identified Gonzalez as the attacker.
- Trevathan and Trevathan’s mother testified about Gonzalez’s presence with Swarthout and Gonzalez changing shirts after the robbery.
- A DNA analyst testified Gonzalez could not be excluded as a possible contributor to DNA from a club linked to the robbery.
- The court affirmed despite the unpreserved error, applying an egregious-harm framework and corroboration requirements under article 38.14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accomplice-witness instruction required? | Gonzalez | Gonzalez | Overruled; error but harmless under record |
| Ineffective assistance for omitting instruction? | Gonzalez | Gonzalez | Overruled; non-accomplice evidence sufficed to corroborate |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (accomplice testimony must be corroborated; deference to jury)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (harm standard for vol. trial errors (egregious harm))
- Davis v. State, 278 S.W.3d 346 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (non-accomplice evidence must rationally connect defendant to offense; harm analysis)
- Patterson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 852 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006) (harmless error in omitted instruction case)
- Henson v. State, 915 S.W.2d 186 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996) (counsel's performance; accomplice-witness context)