Timothy James Mays v. State
06-16-00072-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 10, 2016Background
- Appellant Timothy James Mays was convicted by a Hunt County jury of Assault Causing Bodily Injury (BB gun) on March 29, 2016; sentence: 2 years community supervision and $2,000 fine.
- Incident: victim Hank Allison felt a sharp pain while riding a mower; he did not see the shooter but had previously seen Mays with a BB gun.
- Two State witnesses, Kiland Cash (16) and Jordan Patrick, testified they saw Mays shoot a BB gun toward Allison; both fled the scene and were later detained.
- Officer Samantha Manrique testified she found no weapon, and that the victim and two independent witnesses reported information sufficient to charge Mays.
- Defense moved for directed verdict and objected to the jury charge for failing to include an accomplice-witness instruction and challenged sufficiency of the evidence; the trial court denied the requests and the jury convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mays) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the jury should have been instructed to treat Cash and Patrick as accomplice witnesses under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14 | Witnesses were credible eyewitnesses whose testimony supported charging Mays. | Trial court erred by refusing to submit an accomplice-witness instruction because Cash and Patrick fled, gave inconsistent accounts, and were possibly accomplices; their testimony required corroboration. | N/A — this brief requests reversal; document is appellant’s brief (no appellate decision included). |
| 2. Whether evidence was legally sufficient to convict Mays of assault causing bodily injury | The combined witness testimony and officer investigation sufficed for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Without Cash’s and Patrick’s testimony (if treated as accomplices under art. 38.14), remaining evidence (victim and officer) only shows an injury or that a crime may have occurred, not that Mays committed it; conviction is unsupported. | N/A — appellant asks for acquittal or reversal; this brief does not contain the court’s ruling. |
| 3. Whether the indictment/charge error (use of “BB pellets” v. BBs) invalidates the verdict | The State treated the ammunition description as sufficient in the charge. | The information/charge used a non‑existent or conflated term (“BB pellets”); removing the disjunctive connector altered the charged means and thus undermines the verdict. | N/A — argued for reversal in the brief; no appellate disposition in this document. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (framework for deciding when a witness is an accomplice and when to submit the question to the jury)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (definitions and standards for accomplice-witness and sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review — evidence must permit a rational factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (harmless‑error/degree of harm analysis for preserved jury-charge error)
- Riggs v. State, 744 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) (trial court must submit accomplice status to jury when doubt exists)