Opinion
No. 05-16-00566-CR
05-09-2017
EDDIE RAYE JACKSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1539275-V
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Whitehill, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Boatright
A jury found appellant guilty of murder and assessed his punishment at seventy-five years' confinement. Appellant raises two issues in this Court, challenging (1) the sufficiency of non-accomplice evidence connecting him to the offense and (2) the trial court's instructing the jury about good conduct time. We affirm.
Background
On March 20, 2015, several members of the PSO gang stood outside a house. Five other men, including appellant and Takadre Williams, drove past the house in a white Infiniti. Appellant was a member of the GLMB gang, which was feuding with PSO. Witnesses saw the Infiniti slow down as it passed the house, then turn onto a side street. Minutes later, the car returned, and two men in the car fired into the crowd. Five people were injured; Davion Moulton, who was not a member of any gang, was killed.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and found guilty of murder. He appeals.
Sufficiency of Non-Accomplice Evidence
In his first issue, appellant argues no rational juror could have concluded the non-accomplice evidence at trial tended to connect him to Moulton's murder. A conviction may not be founded solely on accomplice testimony. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14 (West 2005). Instead, that testimony must be "corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed." Id. We evaluate the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence by disregarding the accomplice's testimony and determining whether the remaining record tends to connect the defendant to the offense. Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The corroborating evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). And it need not be sufficient standing alone to establish the defendant's guilt. Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The evidence must only link the accused in some way to the commission of the crime and show that rational jurors could conclude the evidence sufficiently tended to connect the accused to the offense. Simmons v. State, 282 S.W.3d 504, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Although Williams—an accomplice—was the only witness who testified he actually saw appellant fire into the crowd, ample evidence tends to connect appellant to this crime. Terrell Persley watched the "white or silver" car approach the group standing on the corner and slow down as it passed. He saw appellant in the front passenger seat; Persley knew appellant from school, and at the time Persley was seeing Trina Medlock, whom appellant had dated previously. After the shooting, Persley called 911; on the recording of that call, he can be heard telling a friend that he knew "who that was"—it was "Eddie."
Another witness to the shooting, Anthony Pettis, testified he saw the white car as it slowed at the corner: he saw four or five people in the car, and after the car turned the corner he saw two people get out of the back seat and exchange places. (Persley testified he saw two men change seats in the car as well.) When the car drove by the second time, Pettis saw both shooters. One was directly behind the driver; the other was sitting on the windowsill of the front passenger seat and shooting over the car into the crowd. Evidence that one shooter fired from the front passenger side of the Infiniti was reinforced by the discovery of two shell casings under the hood of the car on that side of the vehicle; the State's ballistic expert testified those casings were fired from the same gun that killed Moulton.
The record also contains evidence of appellant's motive for committing the offense. Medlock testified appellant was a member of GLMB. The State introduced a photograph of appellant's leg, which sports a GLMB tattoo. Medlock testified to the ongoing feud between the two gangs that was based, in part, on appellant's having been shot some months earlier by a member of PSO.
Rational jurors could conclude that sufficient evidence, apart from Williams's testimony, tended to connect appellant to the shooting. We overrule appellant's first issue.
Good Conduct Time Instruction
In his second issue, appellant contends the trial judge erred by including an instruction on good conduct time in the punishment charge. Appellant argues the instruction was misleading because he was not eligible for a good conduct reduction in his sentence. He concedes that the challenged instruction was required by the code of criminal procedure, regardless of whether good conduct time would be available in his particular case. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, § 4(a) (West Supp. 2016). A judge who instructs the jury according to this "legislative dictate" does not commit error. Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Moreover, the mandated instruction forbade the jury to consider how good conduct time might apply to appellant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN art. 37.07, § 4(a). We presume a jury follows instructions as they are given. Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Luquis, 72 S.W.3d at 366. An appellant can rebut that presumption by identifying evidence showing the jury did not follow the judge's instruction. Thrift, 176 S.W.3d at 224; Luquis, 72 S.W.3d at 368 (appellant has burden to demonstrate reasonable likelihood that jury was misled or assessed greater sentence based on good conduct instruction). Appellant has made no showing to the contrary here, so we assume the jury followed the trial court's instruction.
We decide appellant's second issue against him.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Jason Boatright/
JASON BOATRIGHT
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160566F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1539275-V.
Opinion delivered by Justice Boatright. Justices Fillmore and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 9th day of May, 2017.