accomplice witness rule in Texas

2026“When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the accomplice- witness rule, we ‘eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.’” Id. (quoting Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim.

2025“When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the accomplice- witness rule, we ‘eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.’” Id. (quoting Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. 4 As stated, Cotton’s point could be construed as a sufficiency challenge contingent on the exclusion of the accomplice testimony (“The evidence, other than that of the two accomplices, is insufficient to connect Appellant to the offen

2026But the trial court’s omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating evidence is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim.

2024The failure to submit an accomplice- witness instruction assessed under the egregious harm standard “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 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim.

2025When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the accomplice-witness rule, we “eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.” Malone, 47 Neither party acknowledges the distinction. 38 253 S.W.3d at 257 .

2025When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the accomplice-witness rule, we “eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.” Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. Crim.

2024“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.’” Id. (quoting Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 692 ); Lewis, 448 S.W.3d at 144 .

2023The Court noted that “[u]nder 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.’” Id. (quoting Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 692 ).

2016The court stated “Where there is doubt whether a witness is an accomplice, submitting the issue to the jury is sufficient even though the evidence seems to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law.”69 The Legislature has held that the fact finder in any criminal case should exercise caution when considering the testimony of an accomplice.70 Accomplice testimony is particularly suspect as “accomplices often have incentives to lie, such as to avoid punishment or shift blame to another person.”71 The defendant is entitled to an accomplice-witnes

2016The court stated “Where there is doubt whether a witness is an accomplice, submitting the issue to the jury is sufficient even though the evidence seems to preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law.”69 The Legislature has held that the fact finder in any criminal case should exercise caution when considering the testimony of an accomplice.70 Accomplice testimony is particularly suspect as “accomplices often have incentives to lie, such as to avoid punishment or shift blame to another person.”71 The defendant is entitled to an accomplice-witnes

2025“The accomplice-witness rule is a statutorily imposed sufficiency review and is not derived from federal or state constitutional principles that define the legal and factual sufficiency standards.” Qualls v. State, 547 S.W.3d 663, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. ref’d) (citing Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 498 (Tex. Crim.

2025“When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the accomplice- witness rule, we ‘eliminate the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.’” Id. (quoting Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. 4 As stated, Cotton’s point could be construed as a sufficiency challenge contingent on the exclusion of the accomplice testimony (“The evidence, other than that of the two accomplices, is insufficient to connect Appellant to the offen

2025But where there is conflicting or inconclusive evidence as to whether a witness is an accomplice, the trial court should include an accomplice witness instruction that “asks the jury to (1) decide whether the witness is an accomplice as a matter of fact, and (2) apply the corroboration requirement, but only if it has first determined that the witness is an accomplice.” Id.

2025But where there is conflicting or inconclusive evidence as to whether a witness is an accomplice, the trial court should include a two-part accomplice witness instruction asking “the jury to (1) decide whether the witness is an accomplice as a matter of fact, and (2) apply the corroboration requirement, but only if it has first determined that the witness is an accomplice.” Id.

2026When the evidence of the witness’s complicity is inconclusive, “the accomplice-witness instruction asks the jury to (1) decide whether the witness is an accomplice as a matter of fact, and (2) apply the corroboration requirement, but only if it has first determined that the witness is an accomplice.” Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2024“A proper accomplice-witness instruction informs the jury either that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law or that he is an accomplice as a matter of fact.” Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 510 .

2024“Whether error in failing to submit an accomplice-witness instruction will be deemed harmful is . . . a function of the strength of the corroborating evidence.” 10 See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (op. on reh’g). 14 Casanova, 383 S.W.3d at 539 .

2018Indeed, appellant’s argument would have a nonsensical result, e.g., a person who merely agreed to give a family member a ride, knowing the family member might purchase some marijuana, would thereby become an accomplice to the capital murder of his own family member. 100 686 S.W.2d at 160–74. 101 See Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 512–13 (“Our review of the underlying principles of Almanza compels us to conclude that all complaints about the trial court’s failure to include an accomplice-witness instruction must be analyzed under its procedural framework.”).

2019This accomplice-witness rule “is not mandated by common law or the [United States Constitution].” Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex. Crim.

2019In his first issue, appellant contends “the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that Appellant committed Aggravated Robbery under both the Jackson-standard and the accomplice- testimony standard.” Specifically, appellant asserts (1) “the sole witness . . . identified by the police as having any personal knowledge of Appellant’s participation in the Brady-incident was Valentine,” who “was positioned to lie” and whose testimony must be corroborated pursuant to the accomplice-witness rule; (2) “the details of the Brady-incident depended on Brady’s ability to accurately describe the event,”

2015"The accomplice witness rule is satisfied if there is some non-accompiice evidence which tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment." Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex.Crim.Apo.1997).

2015Julian v. State, 132 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d)(citing Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)). 229 Hernandez, 939 S.W.2d at 176 . 230 Id. (emphasis original). 24 The Texas legislature statutorily imposed a sufficiency review under the accomplice-witness rule.231 It is not derived from federal or state constitutional principles that define the legal and factual sufficiency standards.232 The burden upon the prosecution requires only that it provide some other evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense.233 The Court consi

2009Article 38.14 provides: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.” See generally Gill v. State, 873 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (discussing the accomplice-witness rule). 5 .

2009Article 38.14 provides: "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense." See generally Gill v. State , 873 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (discussing the accomplice-witness rule). 5.

2016Under the accomplice-witness rule, “the reviewing court eliminates all of the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examines the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.” Id. (citing Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim.

2016Under the accomplice-witness rule, “the reviewing court eliminates all of the accomplice testimony from consideration and then examines the remaining portions of the record to see if there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.” Id. (citing Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356 ; 361 (Tex. Crim.

2025The trial court must include an accomplice witness instruction in its charge if the issue is raised by the evidence because it is the “law applicable to the case.” Id.

2024But when there is conflicting or inconclusive evidence regarding the witness’s complicity, “then the accomplice-witness instruction asks the jury to (1) decide whether the witness is an accomplice as a matter of fact, and (2) apply the corroboration requirement, but only if it has first determined that the witness is an accomplice.” Id.; see also Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 439–40 (recognizing that “[w]hen there is doubt as to whether a witness is an accomplice (i.e., the evidence is conflicting), then the trial judge may instruct the jury to determine a witness’s status as a fact issue”)..

2011See Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (granting writ of ha-beas corpus after concluding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an accomplice-witness instruction); Hall v. State, 161 S.W.3d 142, 156 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. refd) (concluding that trial counsel’s failure to object to omission of an accomplice-witness instruction allowed the jury to convict without corroborating evidence); Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 128-29 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (concluding that because the conviction relied overwhelmingly on the testim

1996We do not believe that a defendant should have to object to the jury charge in order to “preserve error” such that a trial court can grant a new trial in the interests of justice. 2 The Court of Criminal Appeals has determined that the failure to request an accomplice witness instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874, 876-77 (Tex.Crim.

2024However, “when the record clearly shows that a witness is not an accomplice, the trial judge is not obliged to instruct the jury on the accomplice witness rule—as a matter of law or fact.” Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 440 (citing Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 315, 322 (Tex. Crim.

2023However, neither corroboration nor an accomplice-witness instruction is required “when the evidence is clear that the witness is neither an accomplice as a matter of law nor as a matter of fact.” Cocke, 201 S.W.3d at 748 (citing Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 315, 322 (Tex. Crim.

2024Standard of Review Since Booker did not object to the absence of an accomplice-witness instruction, the trial court will be reversed “only in the event that the record demonstrates that the error resulted in egregious harm.” Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim.

2024“Whether error in failing to submit an accomplice-witness instruction will be deemed harmful is . . . a function of the strength of the corroborating evidence.” 10 See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 (op. on reh’g). 14 Casanova, 383 S.W.3d at 539 .

2009Selman v. State , 807 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex. Crim.

2002Selman v. State, 807 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 315, 322 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [4] If there is a fact question about whether a witness is an accomplice, the jury should be instructed to decide that issue.

2012Based on the record, we conclude that Hernandez’s trial counsel performed deficiently for not requesting an accomplice-witness instruction regarding Rios because “an instruction concerning accomplice witness testimony would have informed the jury that it could not convict applicant without corroborating evidence which tended to connect applicant to the commission of the offense, and that evidence merely showing 6 commission of the offense would not be sufficient.” Henson v. State, 915 S.W.2d 186, 197 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.) (holding that trial counsel was deficient under Stric

2008Assuming arguendo that the failure to request an accomplice witness instruction constitutes defective performance, see Henson v. State , 915 S.W.2d 186, 197 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.) (so holding), the evidence unrelated to the accomplice's testimony sufficed to connect appellant to the crime charged.

2023The jury was instructed that Appellant “cannot be convicted on the testimony of David Bethel a/k/a Dave Bethel unless the testimony is corroborated.” Appellant 17 contends that the instruction in this case likely caused more confusion than clarity, because it “impugned and discredited all of Dave Bethel’s out of court statement, even the part that tended to exonerate [Appellant].” The accomplice witness instruction, derived from article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, “does not apply to out-of-court statements but, rather, live testimony of an accomplice at trial.” Tidrow v. Sta

2013Counsel’s Argument The accomplice-witness rule reflects “the legislative determination that accomplice testimony must be taken with a certain degree of caution.” Gaston v. State, 324 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d); see Bingham v. State, 913 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tex. Crim.

2018Id. (noting that defensive issues may be forfeited if not preserved at trial); see also Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 180 (Tex. Crim.

2013Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 180 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (noting that, "[i]f the evidence raises an issue” as to a witness's accomplice status, then "the trial court shall instruct the jury” on the accomplice-witness rule); Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to ”raise[ ] a fact issue” as to one witness’s accomplice status, thereby requiring accomplice-witness instruction for that witness, but finding evidence insufficient to warrant instruction as to other witnesses).

2025See, e.g., Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim.

2013See Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (granting writ of ha-beas corpus after concluding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an accomplice-witness instruction); Hall v. State, 161 S.W.3d 142, 156 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. refd) (concluding that trial counsel’s failure to object to omission of an accomplice-witness instruction allowed the jury to convict without corroborating evidence); Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 128-29 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (concluding that because the conviction relied overwhelmingly on the testim

2009See Wood v. State, 260 S.W.3d 146, 149 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (new trial warranted based on ineffective assistance under circumstances in which “the evidence of guilt at trial is not overwhelming”); Hall v. State, 161 S.W.3d 142, 156 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd) (“Failing to object to the omission of an accomplice witness instruction allowed the jury to convict without any corroborating evidence.”); see also Fuller v. State, 224 S.W.3d 823, 837 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“The State’s case-in-chief consisted of the testimony of J.W. and four witnesses, ea

2024The failure to submit an accomplice- witness instruction assessed under the egregious harm standard “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 (quoting Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim.

2023As previously noted, “[u]nder 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.’” State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587, 598 (Tex. Crim.

2013Accomplice Witness We do not address whether counsel’s performance was deficient because appellant suffered no prejudice. 9 When counsel fails to request an accomplice witness instruction under Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 10 the question of prejudice will “generally turn on whether there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence and whether the record reveals any rational basis on which the jury could have doubted or disregarded that evidence.” Davis v. State, 278 S.W.3d 346, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). 11 To measure the non-accomplice testimony, we must first

2011With respect to the second Strickland requirement, when the claimed deficiency is the failure to object to the trial court’s omission of an accomplice-witness instruction, the record is generally reviewed to determine whether “there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence and whether the record reveals any rational basis on which the jury could have doubted or disregarded that evidence.” Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (setting forth the two-prong test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims).

2011See Ex parte Zepeda, 819 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (granting writ of ha-beas corpus after concluding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an accomplice-witness instruction); Hall v. State, 161 S.W.3d 142, 156 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. refd) (concluding that trial counsel’s failure to object to omission of an accomplice-witness instruction allowed the jury to convict without corroborating evidence); Howard v. State, 972 S.W.2d 121, 128-29 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (concluding that because the conviction relied overwhelmingly on the testim

2011Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172 ; Howard, 972 S.W.2d at 127 .

2013Appellant’s three grounds for review in this Court are: *509 (1) When Texas Penal Code § 7.02(b) language is in the jury charge, must it be specifically referred to when requesting an accomplice witness instruction for a co-conspirator? (2) The opinion of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals is in conflict with Nelson v. State, 297 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2009) as well as with Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). (3) Where the Texas Penal Code § 7.02(b) language is in the jury charge, is a request for a standard Art. 38.14 instruction substantially correct under Stone v. State

2013Instruction on Accomplice-Witness Rule Under Party-Conspirator Theory 2 Appellant’s three grounds for review in this Court are: (1) When Texas Penal Code § 7.02(b) language is in the jury charge, must it be specifically referred to when requesting an accomplice witness instruction for a co- conspirator? (2) The opinion of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals is in conflict with Nelson v. State, 297 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2009) as well as with Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim.

2011With respect to the second Strickland requirement, when the claimed deficiency is the failure to object to the trial court’s omission of an accomplice-witness instruction, the record is generally reviewed to determine whether “there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence and whether the record reveals any rational basis on which the jury could have doubted or disregarded that evidence.” Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (setting forth the two-prong test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims).

2011With respect to the second Strickland requirement, when the claimed deficiency is the failure to object to the trial court’s omission of an accomplice-witness instruction, the record is generally reviewed to determine whether “there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence and whether the record reveals any rational basis on which the jury could have doubted or disregarded that evidence.” Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (setting forth the two-prong test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims).

2015Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (noting that defendant is “entitled to an accomplice-witness instruction if and only if ‘there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a charge against the witness alleged to be an accomplice’ ”) (citing Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 851 (Tex.Crim.App.1986)); Blake, 971 S.W.2d at 454–55 (noting that Court has “repeatedly stated” that person is an accomplice “if he or she could be prosecuted for the same offense as the defendant, or a lesser included offense”); Morgan v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 187 , 346 S.W.2d 116, 118 (App.1961) (d

2015In Medina v. State, the error was harmless under a “some harm” standard for potential accomplices as a matter of fact.346 The Court of Criminal Appeals in Medina found there was a substantial amount of non-accomplice evidence, and the evidence of the witness’s accomplice status was tenuous “barely enough to support 342 Id. 343 Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 633 . 344 Id. 345 Id. 346 Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 642 . 44 the submission as an accomplice as a matter of fact” instruction. 347 Reviewing this record as a whole, egregious harm did not result from the lack of an accomplice- witness instruction on Stella

2011See Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (“The difference in harm standards [for preserved and unpreserved error] impacts how strong the non-accomplice evidence must be for the error in omitting an accomplice witness instruction to be considered harmless.”); Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (applying egregious harm analysis to unpreserved charge error and noting that the approach to assessing the impact of the harm is the same for error preserved by objection and unpre-served charge error); Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (appl

2000See Blake , 971 S.W.2d at 454 & n.8 (mandating an instruction be given to the jury on the corroboration requirement of the accomplice witness rule only when an accomplice witness is called by the State); Solis v. State , 792 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tex. Crim.