Robert Alex v. State, 05-15-00539-CR

Handy murdered by two masked gunmen; surveillance video showed gunmen approaching from behind a shed with faces covered; no physical evidence tied Alex to the murder; Forward identified Alex as the blue-short wearing gunman; Gamble corroborated the jacket/color and noted Alex's nervous behavior; ballistics showed different guns fired; a recorded phone call between Alex and his brother suggested tampering with Forward.
Forward’s identity and role connected Alex to the crime via testimony and corroboration, though some key testimony was hearsay and challenged on preservation grounds.
Witnesses placed Alex near the crime scene with a handgun and wearing blue shorts; a witness saw him behind a shed preparing to shoot; the State argued motive based on alleged theft by Handy from Pickett’s kin.
A non-testifying accomplice (Forward) provided central identification; defendant argued lack of corroboration under Article 38.14, which the court rejected.
The court affirmed the trial judgment, concluding sufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including motive, opportunity, and destruction of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Forward’s statements	Alex preserved nothing; hearsay objections waived	Statements should be excluded as hearsay and Confrontation-Clause violation	Not preserved; admission affirmed
Admission of security guard statements	Hearsay; improperly admitted	State sought limited purpose; objection untimely	Not preserved; admission affirmed
Gamble’s prior statements impeachment	State failed to lay proper predicate	Proper predicate established; trial court acted correctly	Error not preserved; impeachment permissible as foundation shown
Accomplice testimony corroboration	Forward was accomplice; need corroboration	Forward did not testify; no corroboration required	No corroboration required; issue rejected
Sufficiency of evidence	Without admissible hearsay, no link to murder	Other circumstantial evidence suffices	Sufficient evidence supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt

Mays v. State, 285 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (error preservation in evidence rulings)
Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (timeliness of objections to preserve error)
Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (necessity of proper preservation; running objection)
Ruth v. State, 167 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (foundation for admitting prior statements via witness’s lack of recall)
Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (accomplice-witness rule requires corroboration when accomplice testifies)
Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (article 38.14 corroboration standard when accomplice testifies)