Hernandez, William, PD-0238-15

On Sept. 13, 2013 a jury convicted William Hernandez of aggravated robbery and, after the enhancement was found true, assessed life imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed on Dec. 2, 2014.
Complainant Barbara Arnold testified she was held at gunpoint during a home invasion by three men; she identified Hernandez at a live lineup and at trial as the man who held a gun to her head.
Police stopped a tan Hummer later that day and recovered weapons, police-style clothing, a badge, and a mask; Eddie Castaneda (Hummer owner) was detained and testified as an accomplice.
Castaneda, testifying through an interpreter, volunteered in Spanish (outside the jury’s full understanding) that he had two aggravated robbery cases and had committed two with Hernandez; defense counsel objected and the court sustained the objection.
The court identified two jurors who spoke Spanish, questioned each individually, and instructed them to disregard Castaneda’s statement and not to share it; defense moved for a mistrial, which was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence vis-à-vis accomplice corroboration	Hernandez: accomplice testimony (Castaneda) was not adequately corroborated, so conviction should not stand	State: non-accomplice evidence (Barbara’s ID at lineup and trial, physical items in Hummer, other witness identifications, Guzman’s testimony) tended to connect Hernandez to the robbery	Affirmed — appellate court held remaining non-accomplice evidence was sufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony and support conviction
Denial of mistrial after accomplice’s extraneous-offense statement in Spanish	Hernandez: statement identified other aggravated robberies with him; instruction was given only to Spanish‑speaking jurors, not entire panel, so harm was incurable and mistrial required	State: statement was never translated for whole jury; court identified Spanish‑speaking jurors, instructed them individually to disregard and not share, and jurors are presumed to follow instructions	Affirmed — court held error was not incurable or highly prejudicial; curative measures were adequate and no showing jury ignored instruction

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review of evidence)
Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (requirement to exclude accomplice testimony when assessing corroboration)
Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504 (corroborating evidence need only tend to connect accused to offense)
Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (prompt instruction to disregard ordinarily cures improper testimony)
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (mistrial is appropriate only in extreme, incurable circumstances)
Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (mistrial remedy and abuse-of-discretion review)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (discussion of when mistrial is required for highly prejudicial error)
Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (presumption that jurors follow trial-court instructions)