Smith v. State
332 S.W.3d 425
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Smith was convicted of capital murder for killing Carey and Charles Smith in December 2002 while they slept.
- Gardner, Sherry's ex-husband, testified for the State; his capital-murder charge was dismissed and he later pleaded to other offenses in exchange for his testimony.
- The trial court refused to give an accomplice-as-a-matter-of-law instruction for Gardner and instead submitted status as a fact issue to the jury.
- The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed, holding Gardner was an accomplice as a matter of law and that the non-accomplice evidence was insufficient under Article 38.14.
- The State sought discretionary review, challenging both the accomplice instruction ruling and the sufficiency of non-accomplice evidence; the Court granted review on the remedy issue.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals on both points, holding no accomplice-as-a-law instruction was required and that the non-accomplice evidence sufficed to tend to connect Smith to the murders, then remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gardner was an accomplice as a matter of law | Smith argues Gardner was an accomplice as a matter of law because the capital-murder charge was dismissed in exchange for his testimony. | Smith contends the charge dismissal could be part of a package deal; the record shows dismissal but not conclusively tied to testimony. | No; no conclusive evidence shows the charge was dismissed in exchange for Gardner's testimony. |
| Sufficiency of non-accomplice evidence under Article 38.14 | State contends combined non-accomplice evidence connects Smith to the murders. | Smith argues the non-accomplice evidence is insufficient when viewed collectively. | Sufficient; the non-accomplice evidence cumulatively tends to connect Smith to the murders. |
| Remedy for insufficiency of accomplice testimony instruction | State asks to abandon automatic accomplice-as-a-matter-of-law rule for indicted witnesses. | Court of Appeals erred in treating Gardner as an accomplice as a matter of law based on the record. | Dispositive; the automatic rule remains unaltered here; the issue is improvidently granted and dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (accomplice-witness corroboration standards)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (accomplice-witness rule; fact-vs-law determination)
- Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (corroboration requirements; sufficiency review)
- Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (accomplice-witness status; evidence evaluation)
- Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (non-accomplice evidence sufficiency standards)
- Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (defining how cumulative non-accomplice evidence is evaluated)
- Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (motive considered as significant circumstance)
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (motive as significant factor in guilt analysis)