Jacob Brent Smith v. State, 483 S.W.3d 648

Background

Police received a radio report of a possibly stolen vehicle (including plate) on I‑45; officers positioned and identified a matching car driven by Jacob Brent Smith.
Two marked patrol cars pursued Smith with lights and sirens activated; the pursuit lasted about four to five minutes over several miles and involved multiple lane changes, driving on the shoulder, and cutting off other vehicles.
A passenger threw a meth pipe from the vehicle; later the passenger took over driving and was arrested after pulling over. Smith slowed in heavy traffic, opened a window, and jumped out of the moving car, ran across several lanes, injured his ankle on an embankment, and then surrendered.
Smith was convicted by a jury of third‑degree felony evading arrest or detention while using a vehicle (Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04(b)(1)); he pleaded true to two prior felonies and received a 30‑year sentence after enhancement.
On appeal Smith raised four issues: sufficiency of the evidence to prove intentional flight and a lawful attempt to detain; trial court’s refusal to instruct on two lesser included offenses (evading on foot and attempted evasion in a vehicle); and an alleged improper prosecutorial comment during closing argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
1. Sufficiency: did evidence show Smith intentionally fled and that officers lawfully attempted to detain?	Evidence (lights/sirens, pursuit in marked cars, Smith’s evasive driving, cutting across lanes, jumping from moving car) supports intent and lawfulness of detention.	Smith argued there was no intent to flee (no exits, not speeding, possible failure to see/hear officers), and reports lacked details of evasive driving.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in favor of verdict, a rational factfinder could infer knowing, intentional flight and lawful attempt to detain.
2. Lesser included: evading on foot	N/A (State opposed instruction).	Smith argued evidence could support that he only evaded on foot after stopping.	Denied: No evidence he stopped before fleeing; jumping from a moving car and running across lanes continued the vehicular evasion.
3. Lesser included: attempted evasion in vehicle	N/A (State opposed instruction).	Smith argued his surrender after injury constituted only an attempt or delayed compliance.	Denied: Evidence showed he fled until forced to stop by injury; not merely a delayed compliance or failed attempt.
4. Prosecutor’s closing comment about subpoenas and counsel’s ability to talk to officers	Prosecutor contended the comment responded to defense counsel’s repeated argument of being ambushed by officers and thus was invited response.	Smith objected that the comment injected facts outside the record and was improper.	Overruled: Court held defense invited the argument; response was within scope and not extreme or improperly prejudicial.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (apply Jackson standard in Texas)
Ex parte Carner, 364 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussion of evading offense elements)
Horne v. State, 228 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (fleeing includes delayed compliance; slow driving can still constitute evasion)
Meru v. State, 414 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (test for lesser‑included offense instruction)
Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (evidence required to entitle defendant to lesser‑included instruction)
Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (must have evidence germane to lesser offense; jury disbelief of greater‑offense evidence insufficient)
Hobbs v. State, 175 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (vehicular use at any time during the offense elevates evading to felony)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (permitted scope of proper jury argument)