Kenya Abdule Martin v. State
07-15-00079-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- Appellant Kenya Abdule Martin was convicted of capital murder (death penalty waived) and sentenced to life without parole after a jury trial; appeal challenges jury charge accomplice-witness instructions.
- State’s evidence: witnesses Andrea Brown and others placed appellant at a residential robbery where the victim was shot; physical evidence (gun, fingerprints, ballistics, incriminating call) tied the recovered gun to bullets at the scene and to appellant.
- Andrea Brown pled guilty to aggravated robbery and testified pursuant to a plea agreement; the trial court instructed the jury that Andrea was an accomplice and required corroboration for her testimony.
- Appellant argued the court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury that witnesses Marquis Wilkins and Korntee Fennell were accomplices (either as a matter of law or fact), and (2) by the wording of the accomplice definition given (which defined accomplice as one "charged with the crime").
- State replied that neither Marquis nor Korntee performed any affirmative act to promote the charged offense nor were there facts showing they could have been charged; thus no accomplice instruction was required for them and any charge wording did not cause egregious harm.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct that Marquis Wilkins was an accomplice (as matter of law or fact) | Marquis’s conduct and connections (e.g., his shoe worn by Stevon, harboring participants, initial police attention) showed he could be an accomplice requiring instruction | No evidence Marquis committed any affirmative act to promote the robbery/murder or participated in a conspiracy; arrest for a separate robbery and later detention do not make him an accomplice | No egregious harm; accomplice instruction not required for Marquis |
| Failure to instruct that Korntee Fennell was an accomplice (as matter of fact) | Korntee’s initial lack of cooperation and knowledge of events showed factual accomplice status requiring instruction | Mere non-disclosure or uncooperativeness is insufficient; no affirmative act linked Korntee to the offense | No egregious harm; accomplice instruction not required for Korntee |
| Wording of accomplice definition in charge (definition limited to those "charged") | Definition could be read to preclude jury from finding other witnesses accomplices who could have been charged, undermining corroboration requirement | Even if wording was imperfect, no evidence any other witness acted as accomplice; when a witness is clearly not an accomplice, instruction error is inconsequential | No reversible error; no egregious harm shown from instruction wording |
| Standard of review / harmless error | N/A (procedural) — appellant must show egregious harm because he did not request these instructions at trial | Omission of unrequested accomplice instructions reviewed for egregious harm (Almanza/Herron); corroborating evidence here was sufficient, and non-instruction did not render the State’s case clearly less persuasive | Affirmation: appellate relief denied because appellant failed to show egregious harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standard for assessing jury-charge error and harm)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (egregious-harm requirement when party did not request a charge instruction)
- Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (framework for accomplice-witness instructions: accomplice as matter of law vs. matter of fact)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (accomplice status requires affirmative act to promote the offense)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (no instruction required when evidence clearly shows witness is not an accomplice)