Zamora, Jaime Arturo
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1509
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Jaime Zamora and his brother ran a cocaine/marijuana distribution operation in Houston; Zamora handled Houston distribution.
- Salinas became a bitter rival after Salinas started receiving narcotics directly from Mexico and not through Zamora.
- Rosales, a lower-level dealer, joined Zamora against Salinas and helped pursue Salinas for money.
- In summer 2005, tensions escalated into a sequence of violent acts culminating in Salinas’s killing attempt; ultimately, a mistaken killing occurred at Chilos.
- Chapa hired to kill Salinas; Torres recruited others who killed Perez, the complainant, instead of Salinas.
- At trial, the State presented three possible theories of liability (direct conduct, direct party, and party-conspirator), but accomplice-witness instructions addressed only direct-party theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must an accomplice-witness instruction be given under a party-conspirator theory? | Zamora argues yes under party-conspirator theory. | State argues no, co-conspirators are not accomplices. | Yes; instruction is required under party-conspirator theory. |
| Should Almanza apply to accomplice-witness errors arising from party-conspirator theory? | Zamora argues Almanza framework applies. | State argues Almanza applies only to direct-party issues. | Yes; Almanza applies to party-conspirator theory as to charge-error review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (defines accomplice-witness as matter of law vs. fact and requires corroboration when applicable)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (clarifies corroboration requirement for accomplice-witness testimony)
- Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (describes broad definition of accomplice for purposes of instruction)
- Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (accomplice definition and cautions about accomplice testimony)
- Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (applies party-conspirator theory to accomplice-witness analysis)