Isbell, John B.
PD-0472-15
| Tex. | Dec 17, 2015Background
- John B. Isbell was tried jointly for four offenses arising from police chases on July 17–18, 2012: two July 17 offenses (aggravated assault on a public servant by pointing a shotgun; deadly conduct for shooting at a car) and two July 18 offenses (aggravated assault by ramming a patrol car; evading arrest in a vehicle).
- Co‑defendant/accomplice Jamey (Jamie) Haney testified that Isbell was the passenger and fired the shotgun on July 17; her testimony was uncorroborated.
- The State moved to consolidate the separate‑day offenses for joint trial over Isbell’s objection.
- The trial court failed to include the statutory accomplice‑witness instruction (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14) in the jury charge for the July 17 offenses.
- The Second Court of Appeals reversed all four convictions, finding the omission caused egregious harm that permeated the joint trial; Isbell’s brief asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm that reversal (or remand if this Court disagrees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Isbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to give accomplice‑witness instruction required reversal of all convictions tried together | Lack of instruction did not affect July 18 offenses; nothing on record ties the corroboration problem on July 17 to July 18 | Omission permeated the entire joint trial; flawed July 17 convictions made July 18 convictions more likely; consolidation caused spillover prejudice | Court of Appeals: reversed all four convictions for egregious harm due to omission of accomplice instruction |
| Whether evidence from July 18 corroborated Haney’s July 17 testimony so as to cure omission | Presence of Isbell on July 18 and his arrest there corroborated Haney’s testimony about July 17 | July 18 evidence is insufficient corroboration; only connection is same vehicle and Haney’s presence; accomplice testimony must be excluded when assessing corroboration | Court of Appeals: corroboration inadequate; omission not harmless |
| Standard of review for charge omission not preserved at trial | Error was harmless or not egregious because other evidence supports guilt | Error was unpreserved; therefore Almanza egregious‑harm standard applies and egregious harm is met | Court of Appeals: applied Almanza egregious‑harm standard and found egregious harm |
| Whether extraneous/offense similarity doctrine can supply corroboration | Subsequent similar conduct (July 18) supplies corroboration for accomplice testimony | Similarity is weak here (vehicle same, Haney present) and insufficient under precedents excluding accomplice testimony from corroboration analysis | Court of Appeals: extraneous offense evidence did not sufficiently corroborate Haney’s accomplice testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g) (establishes Alm anza harm framework and egregious‑harm standard for unpreserved jury charge errors)
- Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses when omission of accomplice‑witness instruction causes egregious harm given weakness of corroborating evidence)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (when assessing corroboration, accomplice testimony itself is excluded from evidence considered)
- Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (extraneous offenses may corroborate accomplice testimony in appropriate circumstances)
- Heron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (examines sufficiency of corroboration and effect of accomplice testimony conflicts)
- Gill v. State, 873 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (standard for viewing remaining evidence in light most favorable to verdict when accomplice testimony excluded)
- Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defines egregious harm as error that affects the very basis of the case, deprives a valuable right, or vitally affects defensive theory)