Egregious Harm Analysis: Court Case
II. Egregious Harm Analysis
However, even if we assume that the four witnesses were accomplices and that the trial court erred by failing to submit the accomplice witness instruction to the jury, the error does not rise to the level of egregious harm. On appeal, we use the heightened harm standard because Appellant did not object to the absence of the accomplice-witness definition during trial. Arteaga, 521 S.W.3d at 338. “Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (non-accomplice) evidence is so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at 598 (citing Herron …show more content…
State’s Exhibit 10; RR 3:120 Appellant admits that he is in the photograph, but he argues he did not know it was being taken since his back was to the camera. RR 4:99-100 Furthermore, a photograph at Pine Street Salvage’s sale counter shows Appellant selling scrap items on Keeling’s account the same day he returned the truck. State’s Exhibit 20; RR 3:122 Non-accomplice testimony also is sufficient to connect Appellant to the charged offense. Sharon Keeling testified that she accompanied her husband to purchase a lock at the request of Appellant and was present when they put the lock on and delivered a key to Appellant. RR 5:25 Appellant’s own testimony tends to connect him to the theft and discredit the scope of his involvement. Appellant admitted that he helped Keeling with his flat tire as a friend and identified himself on camera selling scrap material on Keeling’s account. RR 4:97 Appellant testified that the double signature on the bottom of the invoice could have been his, but he “didn’t think so.” RR 4:134 Furthermore, Appellant admitted that he was standing in front of Keeling’s truck with items identified by a victim. RR 4:99-100 Because the analysis does not require that the evidence be “sufficient, standing alone, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense,” we conclude that Appellant did not suffer egregious harm from the omission of the accomplice-witness instruction. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at
However, even if we assume that the four witnesses were accomplices and that the trial court erred by failing to submit the accomplice witness instruction to the jury, the error does not rise to the level of egregious harm. On appeal, we use the heightened harm standard because Appellant did not object to the absence of the accomplice-witness definition during trial. Arteaga, 521 S.W.3d at 338. “Under the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating (non-accomplice) evidence is so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at 598 (citing Herron …show more content…
State’s Exhibit 10; RR 3:120 Appellant admits that he is in the photograph, but he argues he did not know it was being taken since his back was to the camera. RR 4:99-100 Furthermore, a photograph at Pine Street Salvage’s sale counter shows Appellant selling scrap items on Keeling’s account the same day he returned the truck. State’s Exhibit 20; RR 3:122 Non-accomplice testimony also is sufficient to connect Appellant to the charged offense. Sharon Keeling testified that she accompanied her husband to purchase a lock at the request of Appellant and was present when they put the lock on and delivered a key to Appellant. RR 5:25 Appellant’s own testimony tends to connect him to the theft and discredit the scope of his involvement. Appellant admitted that he helped Keeling with his flat tire as a friend and identified himself on camera selling scrap material on Keeling’s account. RR 4:97 Appellant testified that the double signature on the bottom of the invoice could have been his, but he “didn’t think so.” RR 4:134 Furthermore, Appellant admitted that he was standing in front of Keeling’s truck with items identified by a victim. RR 4:99-100 Because the analysis does not require that the evidence be “sufficient, standing alone, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense,” we conclude that Appellant did not suffer egregious harm from the omission of the accomplice-witness instruction. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at