LACAZE v. State
346 S.W.3d 113
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Tyrone Lacaze was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole for the October 8, 2006 murder of 15-year-old Delores Riley (Dee Dee).
- The State alleged retaliation for Dee Dee providing information about the September 17, 2006 murder of Dee Dee's boyfriend, Dameion Vance.
- Accomplice witness Sendreka Nelson testified Lacaze directed the shooting; Nelson described Lacaze instructing Dee Dee to exit the car before he opened fire.
- Ballistics linked the gun to both the Riley and Vance murders; ten 9mm casings were recovered from the Riley scene, and fifteen matched casings from the Vance scene and the robberies.
- Police tracked Dee Dee's disappearance through cell-phone data and witness statements; Joshua Lamerson and Kevin Lamerson were initially suspects, but Lacaze became the focus based on Nelson’s testimony and corroboration.
- The court affirmed Lacaze’s conviction, rejecting challenges to hearsay, confrontation, jury-charge error, and sufficiency of corroboration for the accomplice witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and impact of hearsay evidence | Lacaze argues the State’s hearsay was improperly admitted | State contends error was waived/preserved and harmless | Hearsay admitted within limits; error harmless |
| Confrontation rights violated by repeating out-of-court statements | Confrontation clause violated by admission of statements from non-testifying witnesses | No preserved Confrontation Clause error | Issue overruled; no preserved error |
| Trial court's jury-charge on extraneous-offense evidence and corroboration | Charge impermissibly commented on weight by listing corroboration | Use of corroboration proper with limiting language | Charge proper; no error in including corroboration as a permissible use |
| Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice witness Nelson | Non-accomplice evidence does not reasonably connect Lacaze to the offense | Corroboration exists via weapon linkage, ballistics, and other evidence | Rational jurors could connect Lacaze to the offense; corroboration sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (accomplice-witness corroboration requires only linking evidence, not full proof)
- Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (establishes standards for corroboration sufficiency)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (standard for reviewing corroboration in accomplice cases)
- Cockrum v. State, 758 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (evidence connecting to a weapon can corroborate accomplice testimony)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (in-person proximity and presence near the offense as corroboration)
- Purvis v. State, 63 S.W.2d 1030 (Tex. Crim. App. 1933) (proper limiting instruction for extraneous-offense evidence)
- Gillon v. State, 492 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) (extraneous-offense evidence must be used for defined purposes)
- Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-Hou. 2006) (proper extraneous-offense charging and limiting language)
- Miller v. State, 753 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.App.-Hou. 1988) (extraneous-offense use not prejudicial when properly limited)
- Owens v. State, 827 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (proper framework for extraneous-offense instructions)