Reginald Levon Cook v. State
460 S.W.3d 703
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Reginald Levon Cook was convicted by a jury of delivering >4 g but <200 g of cocaine; punishment 14 years' confinement and $5,000 fine. Appeal affirmed.
- Crime arose from an undercover buy on Dec. 29, 2010: confidential informant (Lindsey Ford) arranged purchase by text, was searched and equipped with recording devices and marked money, and met Cook in his car.
- Video of the transaction, text-message printouts, recovered cocaine, and lab analysis were admitted at trial; officers observed and identified Cook on video and recovered two "eight-balls" from Ford after the buy.
- Cook challenged: (1) sufficiency of corroboration for the covert-agent (confidential informant) testimony under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.141; (2) omission of a jury instruction requiring corroboration; (3) admission of extraneous-offense evidence (prior buys); and (4) admission/authentication of text messages.
- The court found the video, officer testimony about surveillance/searches, text messages, and recovery of narcotics constituted corroboration that tended to connect Cook to the offense, and therefore upheld conviction and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for covert agent testimony | Ford’s testimony was uncorroborated; without it only unidentified texts exist | Video, officer surveillance/identification, pre-buy search, text messages, and recovered drugs tend to connect Cook | Corroboration sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Omission of jury instruction on corroboration requirement | Trial court should have instructed jury that covert-agent testimony must be corroborated | Other evidence supplied corroboration; error (if any) was harmless | No reversible error; omission not egregiously harmful |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (prior buys) | Prior buys prejudiced guilt/innocence phase; warrant new trial | Evidence relevant to entrapment defense and partly admitted without objection; cumulative/unobjected evidence made any error harmless | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
| Authentication/admission of text messages | Text messages not properly authenticated and hearsay | Circumstantial evidence + surrounding events linked messages to Cook; messages were party admissions (not hearsay) | Texts admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for evaluating corroboration of covert/accomplice testimony)
- Taylor v. State, 328 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (recording quality can affect its corroborative value)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for reviewing jury-charge error)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious-harm standard for unobjected-to jury charge error)
- England v. State, 887 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (entrapment has subjective and objective elements; prior offenses may rebut inducement)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court’s gatekeeping role for authentication and low threshold for admitting electronic communications)