Morris Jones v. State
05-13-01558-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 7, 2015Background
- Jones and his brother arranged a purported sale of two kilos of cocaine to buyers from Oklahoma; instead the buyers were ambushed at 307 Annarose Drive and two (Morris and Tharps) were killed and Cherry was seriously injured. Alton Beasley was the shooter; Jones and Morris’s intermediary J.P. and phone records tied others to the transaction.
- Morris (victim), Tharps (victim), Cherry (survivor/buyer), J.P. (intermediary), Beasley (shooter), Jones (appellant’s brother), and appellant Morris Jones were involved by phone/text communications before the meeting; appellant texted/addressed logistics and warned about not harming J.P.
- Beasley testified Jones recruited and armed him for a robbery (“a play”), told him to “pop ’em” if things went wrong, and that the money would be split among Jones, appellant, and Beasley. Beasley admitted intent to kill and was an accomplice witness.
- Physical evidence: multiple firearms and shell casings fired from one gun, large cash sum recovered under a victim, fingerprints/DNA linking Beasley and J.P. at the scene, cell‑phone records mapping calls/texts among appellant, Jones, J.P., and Beasley and confirming appellant sent the 307 Annarose address.
- Appellant was acquitted of capital murder but convicted of aggravated robbery (lesser included) as a party to the offenses involving Morris/Tharps and Cherry; jury assessed 15 years’ imprisonment on each conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jones's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Sufficiency — party liability for aggravated robbery (Morris/Tharps) | Evidence (texts, calls, tower data, address sent by appellant, warnings about J.P., planning communications) shows appellant encouraged/aided a common design to rob — guilty as party. | Appellant argued he did not participate; Beasley acted alone and this was a drug deal gone wrong. | Affirmed: non‑accomplice evidence and inferences support party liability. |
| (2) Sufficiency — corroboration of accomplice (Beasley) testimony | Non‑accomplice evidence (cell records, texts, address, witness IDs, physical evidence) tends to connect appellant to the offense, satisfying art. 38.14 corroboration requirement. | Appellant argued accomplice testimony was uncorroborated and thus insufficient. | Affirmed: corroboration requirement met after excluding Beasley’s testimony. |
| (3) Motion to sever from codefendant Jones | Joint trial proper; appellant did not present evidence at hearing to show clear prejudice from joinder. | Appellant sought severance claiming prejudice from joint trial with Jones. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; appellant failed to carry burden/presence of evidence at hearing. |
| (4) Expert reliance on late‑produced documents (cell‑tower list) | Expert testimony was proper; underlying phone records were produced earlier and tower list was public info; court granted time to review. | Appellant claimed discovery violation and that expert should be barred from relying on documents. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defense given time and did not request continuance. |
| (5) Judicial impartiality re: overruling objections/allowing expert | State contended trial court acted within discretion in overruling objections and providing relief (time to review). | Appellant argued denial of neutral/impartial judge due to rulings permitting expert testimony. | Affirmed: no clear showing of bias; objections preserved questioned but record shows court afforded relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sufficiency review and reasonable inferences)
- Burdine v. State, 719 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Crim. App.) (law of parties — common purpose requirement)
- Castillo v. State, 221 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App.) (accomplice corroboration: eliminate accomplice testimony and examine remaining evidence)
- Garza v. State, 622 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for severance motions)
- Duff–Smith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App.) (remedy for discovery violation is continuance)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption of judicial impartiality; clear showing of bias required)