Hall, Kirby A/K/A Kendell Davis
PD-1641-14
| Tex. App. | Jan 16, 2015Background
- Late-night party; Hall (appellant), Ybarra (driver), Rodriguez, Garza, and others were together. A rifle was brought and they drove to shoot in a nearby open area.
- Witnesses (Ybarra and Garza) testified that Hall fired shots toward Deputy Whitlock during a traffic stop; both later pleaded guilty to evading arrest (Ybarra) or received probation (Garza) for related conduct.
- Deputy Whitlock heard gunfire, saw a back-seat passenger lean out with a gun, was struck by a bullet, but could not identify the shooter beyond race and did not pick Hall from a photo spread.
- Forensic testing (GSR, DNA, fingerprints) produced no positive link between Hall and the gun or the car; some GSR was found on Ybarra’s hand and Rodriguez’s prints were on the vehicle.
- Hall was convicted by jury of aggravated assault on a public servant and sentenced to 50 years; the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Ybarra and Garza were not accomplices as a matter of fact, so no accomplice corroboration was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Ybarra and Garza accomplice witnesses as a matter of fact? | They were eyewitnesses who did not participate in the shooting and thus were not accomplices. | Ybarra and Garza were participants in the events involving the gun and therefore accomplices requiring corroboration. | Court: Ybarra and Garza were not accomplices as a matter of fact; no corroboration rule applied. |
| Was the evidence legally sufficient to identify Hall as the shooter? | The totality of testimony and circumstances supports a rational jury finding Hall guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. | Identification relied solely on potentially biased accomplice testimony; physical evidence pointed to others, so evidence was insufficient. | Court: Evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia; conviction affirmed. |
| Could party liability or conspiracy make passengers criminally responsible for the shooting? | Not established—no evidence Ybarra or Garza aided, encouraged, or intended the assault on an officer. | Knowledge of the gun and prior discussion to shoot made them liable as parties or conspirators for foreseeable violent consequences. | Court: No showing that Ybarra or Garza committed affirmative acts or shared culpable intent to make them co-conspirators/accomplices. |
| Did the accomplice-witness rule (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14) require disregarding Ybarra/Garza testimony absent corroboration? | Not applicable because they were not accomplices; their testimony could be considered without statutory corroboration. | Their testimony was inherently untrustworthy and needed independent corroboration that was absent. | Court: Rule did not apply; appellate court reviewed sufficiency under Jackson and affirmed conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (rigorous Jackson sufficiency application)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (party liability and related principles)
- Thompson v. State, 514 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (foreseeable consequences and liability of participants)
- Castillo v. State, 221 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (accomplice-witness corroboration standard)
- Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (corroboration need not be independently sufficient to convict)
- Nava v. State, 379 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (co-defendants liable for foreseeable violent outcomes)