Stewart Lindsay Sherrod v. State
03-14-00584-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Stewart Sherrod was indicted on four counts of forgery and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity; he pleaded guilty to two forgery counts and was convicted by jury on one additional forgery count and the organized‑crime count. Sentences were 15 years (forgery counts) and 35 years (organized crime), concurrent.
- Two forged checks were passed at a Bulverde bank: September 28, 2009, and October 8, 2009, each payable to “Patrick Manning” (whose wallet had been stolen after a bar robbery).
- Misti McMain, a bank teller and Hargrove’s girlfriend, testified she gave account numbers to Sherrod and Hargrove and pleaded guilty to engaging in organized crime; she admitted providing account information used to make checks.
- A bank teller identified Sherrod from a photo lineup as the driver who passed the September 28 check; surveillance photos and testimony tied a BMW (Sherrod’s girlfriend’s car) to that incident.
- Sherrod made inconsistent statements: initial videotaped interrogation denied being at the bank Sept. 28; a later written statement admitted being at the bank with Hargrove and described receiving cash from the earlier forged check and awareness of counterfeit‑check activity.
Issues
| Issue | Sherrod's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Sept. 28 forgery | Insufficient proof he passed the check or knew it was forged | Circumstantial evidence, ID, car, admissions support passing and knowledge | Affirmed — evidence sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for organized criminal activity | Insufficient proof of collaboration in more than one offense (only admitted Oct. 8) | Evidence supports multiple forgeries, McMain provided multiple account numbers, and defendants collaborated | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to show a ‘‘combination’’ and intent to share profits |
| Admission of videotaped statement referencing prior convictions | Trial court violated motion in limine and admission prejudiced jury | No timely objection; even if error, limiting instruction cured and error harmless | Error not preserved; alternatively harmless — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient)
- Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate review limited to whether jury acted rationally)
- Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hypothetically correct jury charge governs sufficiency analysis)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (elements for hypothetically correct charge)
- Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence rule)
- Blea v. State, 483 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury may draw reasonable inferences)
- Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless‑error analysis under Rule 44.2(b))
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and harm standard)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App.) (jury instructions generally cure trial improprieties)
- Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption that jury follows court instructions)