Phillips, Christopher Allen
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 627
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Phillips was convicted of aggravated robbery in Texas and appealed
- Diggs and Slaughter, jailhouse inmates, testified about Phillips' attempts to have them lie for him
- Trial jury charge included Article 38.14 accomplice-witness instruction but no Article 38.075(a) jailhouse-witness instruction
- Prosecutor later emphasized jailhouse testimony in closing without objection
- Court of Appeals held Article 38.075(a) did not apply because the jailhouse statements were not 'statements against [Phillips’] interest'
- Texas Supreme Court vacated the appellate judgment, holding 38.075(a) should have a jailhouse-witness instruction and remanded for harm analysis
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 38.075(a) applies to jailhouse statements | Diggs/Slaughter statements were 'against the defendant’s interest' | 38.075(a) requires statements against interest and may be limited to admissions/confessions | Yes, 38.075(a) applies; statements were against Phillips’ interest |
| Whether the absence of a jailhouse-witness instruction was harmless | Omission prejudiced Phillips given jailhouse testimony | Harmless where other evidence connects Phillips to the offense | Remanded for Almanza harm analysis; not decided on harmlessness |
| What constitutes a 'statement against the defendant’s interest' under 38.075(a) | Broad interpretation includes any statement adverse to position, not just admissions | Narrow interpretation tied to Rule 803(24) admissibility | Broad interpretation adopted; statements can be against interest even without liability exposure |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. State, 436 S.W.3d 333 (Tex.App.—Waco 2014) (addressed jailhouse-witness corroboration and 38.075)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (duty to instruct sua sponte under 38.075)
- Walker v. State, 615 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (accomplice-witness corroboration principle)
- Fernandez v. State, 396 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.Crim.App.1965) (corroboration analysis of accomplice-witness testimony)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (context for corroboration standards in 38.075-related issues)
- Walter v. State, 267 S.W.3d 883 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (404(b) discussion on Rule 803(24) and trustworthiness of statements against interest)