John B. Isbell v. State
02-14-00124-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- On July 17, 2012, Officer Graves conducted a plate check on a Jeep; the passenger (described only as a middle‑aged white male) allegedly pointed a shotgun at him during an attempted stop; shots were fired; the shotgun and shell were later recovered and matched to the weapon.
- No non‑accomplice witness identified Isbell as the July 17 passenger; Jamie Haney (the passenger/co‑defendant) later identified Isbell and testified she was with him and that the shotgun “went off.” Haney pleaded guilty to evading.
- On July 18, the same Jeep was spotted; a high‑speed chase ensued, the Jeep rammed a police car, crashed, and Isbell and Haney fled on foot; officers arrested both and positively identified Isbell as the July 18 driver, with dash‑cam and officer testimony corroborating.
- Isbell was tried on four consolidated causes: deadly conduct (July 17), aggravated assault on a public servant with a shotgun (July 17), aggravated assault on a public servant with a vehicle (July 18), and evading arrest with a vehicle (July 18). He was convicted on all four and given concurrent sentences.
- Trial court omitted the accomplice‑witness instruction for Haney’s testimony; the court of appeals reversed all four convictions for egregious harm from that omission. The State petitioned to review whether the omitted instruction caused egregious harm in each cause.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals assumed error in omission but conducted an egregious‑harm review: it found non‑accomplice evidence weak for the July 17 offenses (requiring reversal/remand) but strong for the July 18 offenses (affirming those convictions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Isbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of accomplice‑witness instruction was error | State did not contest omission was error for review purposes | Error occurred because Haney was an accomplice and instruction was required | Court assumed omission was error and proceeded to harm review |
| Whether the omission caused egregious harm (standard of review) | Omission harmless unless non‑accomplice evidence is so unconvincing it makes State’s case clearly and significantly less persuasive | Omission egregiously harmed Isbell because Haney’s testimony was essential to linking him to crimes | Court applied egregious‑harm standard for unobjected‑to charge errors (Almanza standard) |
| Sufficiency of non‑accomplice evidence for July 17 offenses (deadly conduct; assault on Officer Graves) | State argued July 18 conduct and other circumstantial evidence tied Isbell to July 17 | Isbell argued only Haney identified him as the July 17 passenger; other witnesses couldn’t identify him | Court: non‑accomplice evidence is weak and does not connect Isbell to July 17 offenses; omission caused egregious harm — reverse and remand these causes |
| Sufficiency of non‑accomplice evidence for July 18 offenses (evading; assault with vehicle) | State relied on officer IDs, dash‑cam, and chase/ramming evidence to connect Isbell to July 18 offenses | Isbell argued the July 18 evidence should not be used to infer July 17 guilt; did not claim harm as to July 18 on appeal | Court: non‑accomplice evidence is credible and convincingly connects Isbell to July 18 offenses; omission did not cause egregious harm — affirm these convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (accomplice‑witness instruction purpose and effect)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (harm standards for jury‑charge error; timely objection vs. egregious harm)
- State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (description of egregious‑harm analysis language)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (framework for evaluating non‑accomplice corroboration)
- Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (corroboration need not directly or conclusively identify defendant)