Jackson, Erik Jamal, PD-0127-15

Defendant Erik Jamal Jackson was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment; conviction affirmed by the Fifth Court of Appeals.
Incident (Dec. 23, 2011): victim Ramiro Adame picked up a woman (Monique Adley) who later directed him to a parking/warehouse area; Adame was robbed at gunpoint and lost his wallet and iPhone.
Adley (Jackson’s girlfriend) left with the robbers and later pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery; police tracked the stolen iPhone to a car containing Jackson, Demone Butler, and Adley.
Butler testified for the State; he was indicted for the same offense as Jackson and described dropping Adley off, driving away, and later seeing Adley return to the car with credit cards and an iPhone; Butler said Jackson handed him the phone to hide when police arrived.
Jackson denied participating in the robbery, claimed he was not present when it occurred, but admitted possession of the iPhone after the incident.
On appeal Jackson argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of theft and (2) the court erred by failing to give an accomplice-witness instruction regarding Butler.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether theft is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery that should have been submitted to the jury	Jackson: Evidence (Butler’s testimony, Jackson’s possession of the iPhone, circumstantial inferences) supplied more than a scintilla that Jackson knew the phone was stolen and thus could be guilty only of theft	State: No evidence that Jackson knew the phone was stolen except by participating in the robbery; without knowing it was stolen, Jackson could not be only guilty of theft	Court: Denied. Even if theft is a lesser-included offense, record lacks evidence that Jackson knew the phone was stolen absent participation in the robbery; no abuse of discretion to refuse instruction
Whether trial court erred in omitting an accomplice-witness instruction for Butler	Jackson: Butler was indicted for the same offense and therefore an accomplice as a matter of law; the court had duty to instruct sua sponte and omission harmed Jackson because Butler’s testimony was central and uncorroborated	State: Non-accomplice evidence (Adame’s account, Adley’s behavior and guilty plea, tracking of iPhone, Jackson’s text messages and possession of iPhone) sufficiently corroborated Butler; omission was not egregiously harmful	Court: Denied. Error (if any) was not egregiously harmful because non-accomplice corroboration was strong enough that jury would likely have found Butler corroborated

Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (two-pronged test for lesser-included offense instructions)
Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (theft can be a lesser-included offense of robbery in some circumstances)
Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (evidence requirement for lesser-included offense)
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (courts must not reweigh evidence when deciding whether an inference is reasonable)
Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for egregious harm review when accomplice-witness instruction omitted)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm analysis for jury-charge error)
Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (accomplice-witness instruction and corroboration principles)