Isbell, John B., PD-0470-15

Background

John B. Isbell was tried and convicted of four offenses arising from two high-speed police chases on successive days (July 17–18, 2012): aggravated assault on a peace officer (pointing a shotgun), deadly conduct (shooting at a motorist), aggravated assault on a peace officer (ramming a patrol car), and evading arrest in a vehicle.
On July 17 Haney drove a Jeep with Isbell as passenger; Haney testified Isbell had a shotgun that fired during the chase. Shell casings and a recovered shotgun linked to that event were introduced.
On July 18 the same Jeep was driven by Isbell in a prolonged, high‑speed chase; he crashed, tried to flee, was captured, and officers testified to his driving and ramming the patrol car. Haney was a passenger that night.
The trial court consolidated the four indictments and did not give a jury instruction under the accomplice‑witness rule regarding Haney; defense did not object at trial.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held the trial court erred by omitting the accomplice‑witness instruction as to the July 17 events, found the omission egregiously harmful, and reversed all four convictions, reasoning the harm “permeated the entire trial.”
The State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals arguing (1) the court of appeals misapplied the egregious‑harm analysis by reversing convictions arising from July 18 (for which accomplice instruction was not implicated) and (2) the July 18 conduct and other non‑accomplice evidence tended to corroborate Haney’s July 17 testimony.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Isbell's Argument	Held by Court of Appeals
Whether failure to give an accomplice‑witness instruction for July 17 was reversible error	The court of appeals should consider extraneous/non‑accomplice evidence (including July 18 conduct) when assessing corroboration; lack of instruction did not egregiously harm all convictions	Haney was an accomplice for July 17; omission of the instruction was harmful	Court of Appeals: omission was error and, in its view, egregiously harmful, warranting reversal of all four convictions
Whether corroborating non‑accomplice evidence tended to connect Isbell to the July 17 offenses	The July 18 chase and physical evidence (shotgun, casings) tended to corroborate Haney’s testimony linking Isbell to July 17	The only direct link to July 17 was Haney’s testimony; other evidence was insufficient	Court of Appeals: found insufficient direct corroboration for July 17 and concluded harm permeated trial (reversed all counts)
Whether reversal of July 18 convictions was justified by lack of accomplice instruction about July 17	State: appellate court improperly extended egregious‑harm analysis to unrelated July 18 offenses; July 18 was independently proven	Isbell: consolidation meant evidence from both days could influence jury; no severance requested relief at trial	Court of Appeals: treated consolidated trial holistically and reversed all convictions due to permeation of harm
Whether extraneous‑offense doctrine permits using July 18 events as corroboration for July 17	State: extraneous offense evidence is admissible for corroboration under Art. 38.14; similar conduct on successive days with same Jeep tends to connect defendant	Isbell: focused on lack of direct identification for July 17; argued Haney was accomplice whose testimony required independent corroboration	Court of Appeals: did not credit July 18 events as adequate corroboration in its opinion (hence reversal)

Key Cases Cited

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (establishes egregious‑harm standard for unpreserved charge error)
Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (absence of accomplice‑witness instruction is generally harmless unless corroboration is so unconvincing that the State’s case is clearly and significantly less persuasive)
Llamas v. State, 12 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discusses severance and risks from trying multiple indictments together)
Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (extraneous‑offense evidence admissible to corroborate accomplice testimony)
McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (explains the test for corroboration: eliminate accomplice testimony and assess whether remaining evidence tends to connect defendant)
De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses doctrine of chances and weight of repeated similar extraneous conduct in corroboration)
Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standard quoted in Herron on sufficiency of corroboration)
Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (corroboration must do more than merely show commission of offense)