Michael Dwayne Clark v. State
10-15-00022-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- Around 5:45 a.m. police stopped a vehicle for speed and nonworking taillights; Michael Dwayne Clark was the driver and Raven McQuirter a passenger.
- Officer observed marijuana on Clark’s clothes and in the vehicle console; McQuirter produced a bag with marijuana that contained a smaller bag holding heroin capsules.
- McQuirter testified she knew the bag contained marijuana, denied knowledge of heroin, and appeared surprised when told heroin was present; she was not charged.
- Clark admitted rolling a marijuana blunt while driving and admitted purchasing the bag that contained the heroin capsules.
- Clark was indicted for possession of heroin; a jury convicted him and assessed 15 years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not instructing the jury that McQuirter was an accomplice as a matter of law | McQuirter was an accomplice as a matter of law, so the jury should have been instructed she was an accomplice without leaving it to their factfinding | Evidence was inconclusive on McQuirter's knowledge of heroin, so accomplice status was a factual question for the jury | No error; accomplice status was properly left to the jury as a question of fact |
| Whether non-accomplice evidence sufficiently corroborated McQuirter’s testimony under Art. 38.14 | Testimony of McQuirter was not sufficiently corroborated to connect Clark to possession of heroin | Clark’s admissions about the marijuana and purchase of the bag and officer observations provided corroborating evidence | Sufficient corroboration existed (assuming jury found McQuirter an accomplice) to tend to connect Clark to the offense |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a voir dire under Tex. R. Evid. 705(b) of the State’s expert about underlying data | Clark sought a short voir dire to probe calibration/maintenance and ensure the test met Rule 702 requirements; denial was error | Defense waived a Rule 705(b) request at trial; any error was harmless because cross-examination covered calibration/maintenance | No reversible error: claim waived and, in any event, any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (two-step review for jury-charge error and harmlessness analysis)
- Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (distinguishes accomplice-as-matter-of-law vs. accomplice-as-fact and required instructions)
- Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (same accomplice-instruction framework)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (definition of accomplice and when trial judge must instruct that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law)