Isbell, John B.
PD-0471-15
| Tex. | Nov 2, 2015Background
- July 17, 2012: Haney (driver) and Isbell (passenger) in a Jeep were chased by Azle PD after a license-plate stop; Isbell displayed a shotgun, fired, and struck a civilian vehicle; they evaded officers and escaped that day.
- Shell casings and a Mossberg shotgun were recovered near the July 17 chase; Haney identified Isbell as the passenger and shooter.
- July 18, 2012: Officers located the same Jeep in Haltom City; Isbell (now driving) with Haney as passenger led police on a high-speed, dangerous 24-mile chase, rammed a patrol vehicle, crashed, attempted to flee, and was captured.
- Isbell was convicted of four offenses: two aggravated assaults (one from 7/17, one from 7/18), deadly conduct (shooting civilian car, 7/17), and evading arrest (7/18); significant sentences imposed on each count.
- The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held Haney was an accomplice as a matter of fact for the July 17 offenses, found insufficient non-accomplice corroboration, found egregious harm, and reversed all four convictions; the State seeks review and urges reversal of that appellate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Isbell's Argument | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an accomplice-witness instruction was required for July 17 offenses | Haney may be an accomplice, but July 18 extraneous-offense evidence (Isbell’s flight, same Jeep, same accomplice) provides non-accomplice corroboration; trial omission, if any, was harmless | Haney was an accomplice and her testimony lacked non-accomplice corroboration; omission of instruction egregiously harmed Isbell | Court of Appeals: Haney was an accomplice; lack of corroboration egregiously harmed Isbell as to July 17 counts (required reversal) |
| Whether reversal of unrelated July 18 convictions was warranted | Reversal of July 18 convictions was unnecessary because those offenses were supported by independent, untainted evidence (Isbell captured in the act); omission could not have permeated trial to affect those counts | The omission permeated the entire trial and justified reversal of all convictions | Court of Appeals: reversed all four convictions; State urges CCA to limit reversal to July 17 counts only |
| Proper scope of corroboration for accomplice testimony (may extraneous offenses be considered?) | Extraneous-offense evidence (the July 18 chase) is admissible and properly considered to corroborate under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14 and controlling precedent | Corroboration limited to evidence tied to the charged offense; extraneous events insufficient to corroborate Haney | Court of Appeals: did not credit July 18 events as tending to connect Isbell to July 17; State argues that was error |
| Standard and application of egregious-harm review for omitted instruction | Even if omission occurred, egregious-harm review requires assessing whether non-accomplice evidence made conviction significantly more persuasive; July 18 facts render State’s case convincing | Omission was structural to credibility such that egregious harm occurred | Court of Appeals: found egregious harm on that standard; State asks CCA to find no egregious harm given corroborating extraneous evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and egregious harm)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (when accomplice-witness status is factual issue, jury must decide and corroboration requirement applies)
- Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (accomplice instruction is law applicable to case and omission reviewed for egregious harm)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (corroborating evidence must not be so unconvincing as to render State’s case clearly less persuasive)
- Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (extraneous-offense evidence may be considered for corroboration under Article 38.14)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (doctrine of chances/extraneous similar acts make commission of charged offense more probable)
- Passmore v. State, 617 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (flight can tend to connect defendant to offense and corroborate accomplice testimony)
- Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (post-offense flight tends to connect defendant to crime and corroborate accomplice testimony)
- Estate of Clifton v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 709 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1986) (appellate court cannot reverse judgments that are errorless)