Armaud Sears v. State
This text of Armaud Sears v. State (Armaud Sears v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-15-00161-CR _________________
ARMAUD SEARS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-17651 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Armaud Sears1 appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. In
four issues, Sears contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for aggravated robbery; (2) the testimony of an accomplice witness was
not sufficiently corroborated; (3) the trial court erred in admitting recordings of
telephone calls allegedly made by Sears while in jail; and (4) the trial court erred in
1 The record reflects that Sears is also known as Armaud R. Sears, Armaud Rashad Sears, and Donovan Zeno. 1 admitting out-of-court statements by a witness who did not testify at trial in violation
of Sears’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. For the reasons set forth below,
we modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense of
robbery, affirm the conviction as modified, reverse the imposition of sentence, and
remand the cause to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
I. Background
In the early morning hours of March 8, 2013, Laura Brown.2 was at her home
in Beaumont, Texas, packing to leave for a trip to Las Vegas with her boyfriend,
Kadrian Cormier. In preparation for the trip, Brown had gone to an ATM the day
before and had withdrawn $3,000. She put the money under her bed in a shoebox
that she was planning to take on the trip. At approximately 4:30 or 4:45 a.m., Brown
sat down on her bed and dozed off. Cormier, who was living with Brown at the time,
had also dozed off on the bed next to her. At some point thereafter, Brown was
awakened by the sound of someone banging on the back door of her house and
screaming, “Beaumont Police, open the door.” Brown immediately got up and began
walking down the hallway towards the back door. However, before she reached the
end of the hallway, three men broke through her back door and entered her house.
2 To protect the identity of the victim, we will use the name “Laura Brown” throughout the opinion. 2 The men were dressed in black and were wearing ski masks and gloves. Brown
turned around and attempted to run away, but one of the men grabbed her, put her in
a chokehold, and put a gun to her head. As the man grabbed her, Brown saw her
daughter wake up and get out of bed, and Brown pleaded with the man to let her
daughter come to her. The man, however, stated only, “[D]o you know where he is?”
Brown, who was terrified, told him that she did not know who he was talking about.
While the man held Brown at gunpoint, the other two masked men went into
Brown’s bedroom. The man holding Brown then forced Brown to lay down on the
bed and eventually allowed her daughter to come and sit next to her on the bed.
While Brown and her daughter sat on the bed, two of the men held guns to their
heads. The third man grabbed Brown’s son and walked through the house holding a
gun to the boy’s head while the man looked to make sure that no one else was in the
house. Brown testified that all three of the men had guns, and she described two of
the guns as handguns and the third gun as a “long” gun.
After searching the other rooms in the house, the third man returned to
Brown’s bedroom with her son and allowed her son to sit with Brown and her
daughter on the bed. The three men then started looking under the bed in Brown’s
bedroom. Brown heard one of the men say, “[O]h, I found something. We got
something.” She also heard one of the men say, “[L]ook, it’s right here, it’s right
3 here[.]” The men removed Brown’s money from the shoebox under the bed and took
it. They also took a watch on Brown’s dresser. After taking the money and jewelry,
the men instructed Brown and her children to put their heads down and to wait for
five minutes. The men then left Brown’s house. After they left, Brown got up from
the bed, locked the bedroom door, and called 911.
Brown testified that during the robbery, she was in fear for her life and the
lives of her children. She stated that she believed that the men were going to kill her
and her children. She explained that after the robbery occurred, she and her children
were afraid to live in her house and eventually moved.
Brown testified that when she first heard the sound of banging on the back
door, she and Cormier both got out of bed at the same time and started going to the
back door, but when she turned around, she did not see Cormier anymore. She
testified that she later learned that Cormier had escaped from the house when the
intruders broke in through the back door. She recalled that Cormier returned to her
house ten or fifteen minutes after the intruders left.
On cross-examination, Brown testified that she told the police that the
intruders had stolen $3,000 and a watch. She testified, however, that Cormier told
the police that the intruders had stolen $5,400 that Brown had received from an
income tax refund. Brown recalled telling the police that the only people who knew
4 she had received an income tax refund were Cormier and a female friend of hers and
that Cormier was the only person who knew where she had put the income tax
refund. She did not know if Cormier told anyone else about the money in the house
or if Cormier had any of his own money in the house. While Brown testified that she
did not recall telling the police that the intruders seemed to know where the money
was hidden, she agreed that the intruders went straight to her bedroom after breaking
into the house.
Brown ended her relationship with Cormier about three or four months after
the robbery occurred. She denied breaking up with Cormier because she discovered
that he was dealing drugs and denied that Cormier ever kept drugs at her house as
far as she knew. She testified that she had no knowledge of any drugs stolen during
the robbery, and she did not believe that Cormier was involved in the crime.
Kadrian Cormier did not appear or testify at trial. However, a Beaumont police
officer testified that he spoke with Cormier at the scene. Cormier told the officer that
Cormier was asleep when Brown awoke him and told Cormier that someone was
knocking on the door and saying they were Beaumont police. Cormier told the
officer that Cormier got out of bed to see who was at the door and saw two black
males wearing ski masks inside the house. When he saw the intruders, Cormier ran
to the bathroom in Brown’s bedroom and escaped through the window. Cormier told
5 the officer that once outside, he ran around the side of Brown’s house, climbed over
the fence, and ran out in front of the house. He then flagged down a red Toyota
Tundra pick-up truck that was in front of Brown’s house and got into the vehicle.
Cormier described the driver of the red pick-up truck as a black male with facial hair
and a short haircut. Cormier told the officer that he asked the driver if he could use
his cell phone to call 911, but the driver refused, stating that he was talking to his
mother and that the phone’s battery was about to die.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-15-00161-CR _________________
ARMAUD SEARS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-17651 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Armaud Sears1 appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. In
four issues, Sears contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for aggravated robbery; (2) the testimony of an accomplice witness was
not sufficiently corroborated; (3) the trial court erred in admitting recordings of
telephone calls allegedly made by Sears while in jail; and (4) the trial court erred in
1 The record reflects that Sears is also known as Armaud R. Sears, Armaud Rashad Sears, and Donovan Zeno. 1 admitting out-of-court statements by a witness who did not testify at trial in violation
of Sears’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. For the reasons set forth below,
we modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense of
robbery, affirm the conviction as modified, reverse the imposition of sentence, and
remand the cause to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
I. Background
In the early morning hours of March 8, 2013, Laura Brown.2 was at her home
in Beaumont, Texas, packing to leave for a trip to Las Vegas with her boyfriend,
Kadrian Cormier. In preparation for the trip, Brown had gone to an ATM the day
before and had withdrawn $3,000. She put the money under her bed in a shoebox
that she was planning to take on the trip. At approximately 4:30 or 4:45 a.m., Brown
sat down on her bed and dozed off. Cormier, who was living with Brown at the time,
had also dozed off on the bed next to her. At some point thereafter, Brown was
awakened by the sound of someone banging on the back door of her house and
screaming, “Beaumont Police, open the door.” Brown immediately got up and began
walking down the hallway towards the back door. However, before she reached the
end of the hallway, three men broke through her back door and entered her house.
2 To protect the identity of the victim, we will use the name “Laura Brown” throughout the opinion. 2 The men were dressed in black and were wearing ski masks and gloves. Brown
turned around and attempted to run away, but one of the men grabbed her, put her in
a chokehold, and put a gun to her head. As the man grabbed her, Brown saw her
daughter wake up and get out of bed, and Brown pleaded with the man to let her
daughter come to her. The man, however, stated only, “[D]o you know where he is?”
Brown, who was terrified, told him that she did not know who he was talking about.
While the man held Brown at gunpoint, the other two masked men went into
Brown’s bedroom. The man holding Brown then forced Brown to lay down on the
bed and eventually allowed her daughter to come and sit next to her on the bed.
While Brown and her daughter sat on the bed, two of the men held guns to their
heads. The third man grabbed Brown’s son and walked through the house holding a
gun to the boy’s head while the man looked to make sure that no one else was in the
house. Brown testified that all three of the men had guns, and she described two of
the guns as handguns and the third gun as a “long” gun.
After searching the other rooms in the house, the third man returned to
Brown’s bedroom with her son and allowed her son to sit with Brown and her
daughter on the bed. The three men then started looking under the bed in Brown’s
bedroom. Brown heard one of the men say, “[O]h, I found something. We got
something.” She also heard one of the men say, “[L]ook, it’s right here, it’s right
3 here[.]” The men removed Brown’s money from the shoebox under the bed and took
it. They also took a watch on Brown’s dresser. After taking the money and jewelry,
the men instructed Brown and her children to put their heads down and to wait for
five minutes. The men then left Brown’s house. After they left, Brown got up from
the bed, locked the bedroom door, and called 911.
Brown testified that during the robbery, she was in fear for her life and the
lives of her children. She stated that she believed that the men were going to kill her
and her children. She explained that after the robbery occurred, she and her children
were afraid to live in her house and eventually moved.
Brown testified that when she first heard the sound of banging on the back
door, she and Cormier both got out of bed at the same time and started going to the
back door, but when she turned around, she did not see Cormier anymore. She
testified that she later learned that Cormier had escaped from the house when the
intruders broke in through the back door. She recalled that Cormier returned to her
house ten or fifteen minutes after the intruders left.
On cross-examination, Brown testified that she told the police that the
intruders had stolen $3,000 and a watch. She testified, however, that Cormier told
the police that the intruders had stolen $5,400 that Brown had received from an
income tax refund. Brown recalled telling the police that the only people who knew
4 she had received an income tax refund were Cormier and a female friend of hers and
that Cormier was the only person who knew where she had put the income tax
refund. She did not know if Cormier told anyone else about the money in the house
or if Cormier had any of his own money in the house. While Brown testified that she
did not recall telling the police that the intruders seemed to know where the money
was hidden, she agreed that the intruders went straight to her bedroom after breaking
into the house.
Brown ended her relationship with Cormier about three or four months after
the robbery occurred. She denied breaking up with Cormier because she discovered
that he was dealing drugs and denied that Cormier ever kept drugs at her house as
far as she knew. She testified that she had no knowledge of any drugs stolen during
the robbery, and she did not believe that Cormier was involved in the crime.
Kadrian Cormier did not appear or testify at trial. However, a Beaumont police
officer testified that he spoke with Cormier at the scene. Cormier told the officer that
Cormier was asleep when Brown awoke him and told Cormier that someone was
knocking on the door and saying they were Beaumont police. Cormier told the
officer that Cormier got out of bed to see who was at the door and saw two black
males wearing ski masks inside the house. When he saw the intruders, Cormier ran
to the bathroom in Brown’s bedroom and escaped through the window. Cormier told
5 the officer that once outside, he ran around the side of Brown’s house, climbed over
the fence, and ran out in front of the house. He then flagged down a red Toyota
Tundra pick-up truck that was in front of Brown’s house and got into the vehicle.
Cormier described the driver of the red pick-up truck as a black male with facial hair
and a short haircut. Cormier told the officer that he asked the driver if he could use
his cell phone to call 911, but the driver refused, stating that he was talking to his
mother and that the phone’s battery was about to die. Cormier stated that while he
was in the red pick-up truck, he was able to hear a male’s voice on the other end of
the phone and heard the driver refer to the person to whom he was speaking as a
“dude.” Cormier told the officer that when he heard that, he became suspicious and
began to suspect that the driver of the red pick-up truck might possibly be involved
in the break-in at Brown’s house. According to the officer, Cormier told the driver
of the red pick-up truck that he wanted to get out of the vehicle. The driver, however,
said, “I bet you do, mother f----r” and refused to allow Cormier to get out of the
vehicle. Cormier stated that the driver then drove the truck out of Brown’s
neighborhood and turned onto Dowlen Road. Cormier then decided to jump out of
the truck. Cormier informed the officer that after escaping from the red pick-up
truck, he flagged down a second vehicle to seek help. Cormier stated that when he
got into the second vehicle, the driver pulled up behind the red pick-up truck, and
6 Cormier was able to get the red pick-up truck’s license plate number. Cormier stated
that the driver of the second vehicle let him use his phone to report the break-in and
drove Cormier back to Brown’s house. When the police later arrived, Cormier gave
the license plate number of the red pick-up truck to the officer.
The officer testified that he also interviewed Brown at the scene after he spoke
with Cormier. Brown told the officer that four suspects had broken into her house.
She stated that the suspects held her and her children at gunpoint and that one of the
suspects held her face against the mattress of her bed and threatened to kill her if she
did not remain quiet. According to the officer, Brown stated that the intruders took
her income tax refund, which she reported was $5,400. She told the officer that this
money had been hidden in a running shoe underneath her bed. The officer testified
that Brown also told him that the intruders took a watch and a ring. Brown provided
the police descriptions of the four intruders that she saw inside the house.
Specifically, she stated that the first suspect was a black male who was
approximately six feet tall and had broad shoulders; the second suspect was a black
male who was approximately six-foot, five inches tall and had a “skinny” body; the
third suspect was a black male who was six feet tall with a medium build; and the
fourth suspect was a short, black male of medium size. The officer agreed that Sears,
who is approximately five-foot, six inches tall and larger than a medium build, did
7 not match any of the descriptions that Brown provided of the intruders who broke
into her home.
The officer testified that while he was at Brown’s house, he observed injuries
on Cormier’s legs that were consistent with Cormier’s account of escaping through
Brown’s bathroom window, climbing over a fence, and jumping out of a vehicle.
The officer testified that he also observed that the wooden privacy fence surrounding
Brown’s home had a board that appeared to have been “freshly broken.” When the
officer walked through the house to look for additional evidence to help in the
investigation, he observed that nothing in the house seemed disturbed, except for a
broken lamp and the back door through which the intruders had entered.
A second Beaumont police officer who responded to the robbery testified that
when he initially arrived at Brown’s home, he saw that the back door had been
kicked in. Brown told the second officer that three men had entered her house and
had announced themselves as Beaumont police officers. She told him that the men
pointed guns at her and asked, “Where’s the money?” Brown told the second officer
that the only money she was aware of was the money from her income tax refund
that she had just received. She stated that she, Cormier, and a female friend were the
only people who knew about the income tax refund and that only she and Cormier
knew where the money was hidden. Brown told the second officer that when the
8 intruders entered her home, they went straight to where the money was hidden, took
the money, and left. She told him that it was as though the intruders knew exactly
where the money was. The second officer testified that these facts suggested to him
at the time that the robbery was an inside job, meaning that someone who knew
where the money was hidden had been working with the intruders. The second
officer stated that when he arrived at Brown’s house, Cormier was there. He recalled
that Cormier seemed calm. He testified that he did not speak with Cormier, but
Cormier told another officer that he had escaped through the bathroom window.
The State introduced an audio recording of the 911 call that Brown made after
the robbery occurred. The audio recording was admitted into evidence and played
for the jury. The recording indicates that the call was made at 6:09 a.m. During the
call, Brown informed the 911 operator that three or four black men had broken into
her home and had taken her income tax check. Brown stated that all of the intruders
had guns and that the intruders had escaped in a “newer model Toyota Tundra.”
During the call, Cormier also spoke to the 911 operator and stated that the intruders
left in a red Toyota Tundra and a “newer model” silver Toyota 4Runner.
The second officer testified that right before he was dispatched to the robbery
at Brown’s house, he had been dispatched to a call about a suspicious truck backing
up in the northbound lanes of Dowlen Road. Specifically, he was informed that three
9 men had been seen running out of a culvert and getting into the truck on Dowlen.
The second officer testified that the reported location of the suspicious truck was
only about half a block from Brown’s house, and the culvert that the three men were
seen coming out of ran behind the street on which Brown’s house was located. The
second officer testified that he later asked the police dispatcher to get in touch with
the individual who had called in the suspicious truck. That witness stated that he was
traveling north on Dowlen after leaving a local gym and saw a red Toyota Tundra
truck backing up on Dowlen. He then saw three males leaving a ditch and jumping
into the truck.
The witness who reported the suspicious truck testified that on the morning of
March 8, 2013, he went to the gym at approximately 5:00 a.m. to exercise. Later that
morning, he left the gym and began driving north on Dowlen Road. While on
Dowlen Road, the witness noticed a red truck “quite a ways up” in front of him,
approaching the intersection of Dowlen Road and Westgate Drive. The witness
testified that the truck caught his attention because it stopped before it reached the
intersection and began backing up in its lane of traffic. As the witness slowed down
for the traffic light at the intersection, he passed the red truck. As he did so, he
observed three people emerge from a ditch that ran along the side of the
neighborhood in that area and get into the red truck. The witness recalled that the
10 three people were wearing dark clothing and had hoods pulled over their heads. He
testified that he was unable to see their faces or if they had anything in their hands.
According to the witness, it appeared that the truck had initially driven past the ditch
and then backed up to pick up the three individuals. Thereafter, the truck pulled up
to the intersection, and the witness was able to get the truck’s license plate number.
The truck then turned right onto Westgate Drive, and the witness lost sight of it.
Because he thought the truck’s actions were suspicious, the witness called 911 and
reported what he had seen. At trial, a recording of the witness’s 911 call was admitted
into evidence and played for the jury. The recording indicates that the call was made
at 6:01 a.m. During the call, the witness gave the 911 operator the license plate
number of the red truck that he had observed on Dowlen Road.
Crystal Foxall testified that she has known Sears her entire life. In February
or March of 2013, Sears asked Foxall to rent a vehicle for him, and he gave her
money for the rental. Thereafter, Foxall used the money to rent a red Toyota Tundra
pick-up truck. After paying the rental fee and picking up the truck, Foxall gave the
truck to Sears. After that, Sears had the truck “for a while.” Aside from one occasion
when Foxall took the truck back to the rental company to have its oil changed, Foxall
testified that she did not know who drove the truck after she gave it to Sears. She
11 also did not know the truck’s license plate number and did not know why Sears
needed the truck.
Darrell Bendy, an inmate, was called by the State to testify about a statement
he purportedly gave to detectives in April of 2013 about Sears’s alleged involvement
in the robbery. While on the stand, however, Bendy testified that he did not
remember providing a statement to detectives, did not remember giving the
detectives information about Sears or the robbery, denied knowing Sears, and denied
knowing who committed the robbery. He also claimed to have been “on drugs” when
he spoke to the detectives. At the conclusion of Bendy’s testimony, the State offered
into evidence a document that the State claimed was Bendy’s written statement, but
the trial court refused to admit the document into evidence.
The detective who investigated the robbery at Brown’s house testified that he
took a sworn statement from Brown shortly after the robbery occurred. Brown told
the detective that she and Cormier had stayed up late cleaning her house and packing
to get ready for a trip. Early the next morning, she heard a loud noise, and three men
invaded her home, yelling “Beaumont police.” Brown told the detective that the
intruders held her and her children at gunpoint and searched the house. Brown stated
that one of the intruders had a rifle and the others had pistols. Brown told him that
the men stole $3,000, a diamond watch, and a diamond ring. Brown also told the
12 detective that she and Cormier were the only two people who knew where the money
was hidden.
The detective also obtained a sworn statement from Kadrian Cormier.
Cormier’s statement to the detective was consistent with the other officer’s
testimony regarding what Cormier told the officer at the scene. However, the
detective testified that Cormier never mentioned anything to him about the silver
Toyota 4Runner that was described in Cormier’s call to 911.
The detective testified that after he obtained the license plate number of the
red truck from Cormier, he ran the license plate number through the State database
and discovered that the truck was a rental vehicle. The detective went to the rental
company and learned that the truck had been rented to Crystal Foxall. Thereafter,
the detective contacted Foxall, who told him that she had rented the truck for Sears.
As part of his investigation, the detective also reviewed the 911 calls
pertaining to the robbery. Based on those calls, the detective contacted the witness
who called 911 about the suspicious truck on Dowlen Road. The witness repeated
his eyewitness account of the suspicious truck. The detective testified that the street
on which Brown’s home was located intersects with Dowlen Road in the same area
in which the witness reported seeing the red truck. During the witness’s 911 call, the
witness provided the license plate number of the red truck that he observed on
13 Dowlen Road. The license plate matched the license plate number that Cormier had
identified as being on the red truck that he initially flagged down and got into after
escaping from Brown’s house. Based on this fact, the detective testified that it was
his belief that the red truck that Cormier initially flagged down was the same truck
that the witness saw the three men get into on Dowlen Road. The detective testified
that this evidence was also consistent with Brown’s statement that three masked men
ran into her home.
According to the detective, Cormier described the driver of the red truck as a
heavy-set black male with a medium complexion and a “low” haircut. He then
identified Sears as the driver of the red truck from a photo lineup of six men. Cormier
told the detective that he was one hundred percent certain that Sears was the driver
of the truck after seeing Sears’s photo in the lineup. Two days after the robbery,
Beaumont police located Sears driving a red Toyota Tundra pick-up truck with the
same license plate number that had been identified by Cormier and the witness. Sears
was taken into custody and later interviewed by the detective. During the interview,
Sears denied participating in the robbery and denied acting as a getaway driver for
the three men who broke into Brown’s home. Sears admitted, however, that he had
been in same area on the morning of March 8 to meet a girl and that while he was
driving, someone had jumped into his truck.
14 As part of his investigation, the detective also interviewed Darrell Bendy.
Bendy provided information to the detective about the statements Sears made to
Bendy regarding Sear’s involvement in the robbery. Additionally, the detective
testified that during his investigation, he was told that Cormier sold drugs. He also
testified that Sears is a known drug dealer who was known to rob other dealers. The
detective stated that based on his investigation, he came to the conclusion that Sears
was a party to the robbery of Brown’s house. He testified, however, that he was not
able to sufficiently identify the other three assailants who broke into Brown’s home.
He testified that he had no reason to suspect that Cormier was involved in the
robbery.
At trial, the State also introduced audio recordings of three telephone calls. A
sergeant with the Jefferson County Correctional Facility testified that the calls were
made by Sears while he was incarcerated in the Jefferson County jail. All three audio
recordings were admitted into evidence and played for the jury. In all three
recordings, the caller is a male who identifies himself as “Sauce.” The detective who
investigated the robbery testified at trial that Sears goes by the nickname, “Hot
[S]auce.”
In the first recording, Sauce calls a female named Sharika, who uses a separate
telephone to call a person referred to as Sauce’s younger brother, Donovan. At the
15 beginning of the call, Sharika acts as an intermediary between Sauce and Donovan,
relaying information between the two. During this portion of the call, the following
conversation can be heard:
Sharika: Hello? Donovan? What you want me to tell him, Sauce? Sauce: Man, tell that n----r I say what’s up, man? Sharika: (Speaking to Donovan) He say, “What’s up, man”? Sharika: (Speaking for Donovan) He say . . . he talk to K. Sauce? Sauce: Yeah? What did that n----r say? Sharika: (Speaking to Donovan) He say, “What that n----r said?” Sharika: (Speaking for Donovan) “The same thing I told you, Sauce.” Sauce: Ask him—did he ask that n----r about that bitch, too? Sharika: (Speaking to Donovan) He say, “Did you ask him about the bitch, too?” Sharika: (Speaking for Donovan) “I told you, nobody ain’t going to court.” Sauce: Hey, ask Cuz . . . tell that n----r Cuz, if that n----r don’t go when I go back, I’m bound to get . . . two year time served, Cuz. You know what I’m sayin’? Sharika: What happened? What you say, Donovan? Sharika: (Speaking for Donovan) “ET say he going to be with him to make sure that he don’t go to court.” Sauce: Who? TC? Sharika: (Speaking to Donovan) TC, you said? Sharika: (Speaking for Donovan) “ET.” Sauce: Oh, ET. That’s better. That’s better. . . .
Later on in the call, Sharika holds the two telephones close to each other so that
Sauce can speak directly to Donovan. Although portions of the conversation between
Sauce and Donovan are unintelligible, the following conversation can be heard:
Sauce: Hey, what’s up, big buddy? Donovan: What’s up, buds? 16 Sauce: G-- d---, bitch. What been crackin’? Donovan: Man, I’ve just -- I’ve been working, bitch. . . . Sauce: What, um -- hey, you had talked to that n----r yourself? Donovan: Who? Sauce: K, bitch [unintelligible]. Donovan: I said when I was there, he was on some scared sh-t. [unintelligible] He hang up the phone. His mama gave me his number [unintelligible] another number from Sharika. He hang up the phone in my face. The phone, n----r. I see ET going down, uh, in the gate. You know, the first time I got ET to holler at him, ET called the n----r in front of me. So, I slammed ET down. ET [unintelligible] and ET comes over [unintelligible]. He like . . . ET like, “Man, that n---- r scared.” He’s like, . . . “I told Sauce from the first time that that n----r and that bitch ain’t going nowhere towards a court.” Man, he like, “Sauce is my kinfolk. I love Sauce. . . . Before I let another n----r take that kid down, I’m going to take that n----r down.” I’m like, sh-t, I feel that. I saw ET last night. I listened to him last night. Sauce: Yeah. Yeah. Donovan: He was like, “Man, I swear, I bet on my life, on my kids, that n----r’s not showing up to court, Cuz. And that’s one thing he ain’t going to do is come to court. And, like, that n----r don’t want no beef. He don’t want no . . . problems with nobody else. And, you know, if he shows up to court, that’s what it’s going to be.”
In the second recording, Sauce calls a female whom he identifies in the call
as his mother. His mother, in turn, refers to him as “Armaud.” During the call, the
following conversation can be heard:
Sauce: I need you to call that n----r, Donovan. Mother: What you want me to tell him? I can go over there and tell him. ....
17 Sauce: Look, man I need you -- man, don’t forget because this is important. Mother: I’m not. . . . Sauce: I don’t really . . . want to say too much on the phone -- Mother: I know, I know. Sauce: --so don’t . . . repeat nothing I say. Just tell him exactly like I tell you. Tell that n----r, Donovan, . . . tell him that I’m about to start my trial today. So tell him he need to call—you might need to write it down so you won’t forget these names. Mother: Hold on, hold on. I need to get a—I got a pen. Let me get a piece of paper. .....
Mother: Okay. Name? Sauce: Tell him to tell--tell him he need to get in touch with ET-- Mother: ET. Mm-hmm. Sauce: --and tell him to, uh, tell ET to get at that n----r. Mother: Mm-hmm. Sauce: Tell him, uh-- Mother: Okay. I got you. Sauce: Alright, look. Tell ET to get at that n----r today. And tell him that today and tomorrow . . . I’m going to be going to trial. Tell that n----r he need to make sure . . . that that little situation’s straight. Mother: Mm-hmm. Okay. I got you. ....
Sauce: You be seeing Jay over there? Mother: All the time. He asks about you all the time. Sauce: You going to see him . . . today? Mother: Uh-huh. Sauce: Look, tell him . . . tell that n----r, look, alright, the same stuff I told you to tell Donovan-- Mother: Mm-hmm. Sauce: --tell that n----r, Jay-- Mother: Mm-hmm.
18 Sauce: --that, uh, man, . . . just tell Jay that . . . he know that n---- r, K? Right? You know what I’m saying? Mother: Mm-hmm. Sauce: And just tell him, like . . . tell him . . . Mother: I know what you want me to say. I got you. Sauce: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell him, uh-- Mother: I got it. You ain’t got to say it. I got it. ....
Sauce: Hey, don’t forget, mom. Call him and get that n----r Jay’s number. Call him and tell him what I said, too. Mother: I am. Sauce: Alright. Mother: Bye-bye. I love you. Sauce: Hey, hey, mom, tell Donovan to get right on that, man. Tell him we ain’t got no time to waste.
In the third recording, Sauce calls a female who is with someone named Bree.
During the call, the following conversation can be heard:
Sauce: Ask Bree if she still be talking to that ho or that n----r, K. Female: (Speaking to Bree) You still be talking to K, Bree? Female: (Speaking for Bree) She say, “Yeah, that’s her man.” Sauce: Ask her if Cuz, uh, if he still f---ing Laura. Female: If he still what? Sauce: If he still f---ing Laura. Female: Wait. Cora? Sauce: Put her on the phone.
At this point in the call, Bree gets on the telephone and speaks directly to Sauce. The
following conversation then takes place:
Bree: Hello. Sauce: Hello? Bree: What’s up? Sauce: What you say, Bree? 19 Bree: What’s up? Sauce: Say, is Cuz still f---ing Laura? Bree: Yeah. Sauce: Hey, is that ho still staying in Beaumont or she moved? Bree: She moved. Sauce: Hey, that thing with you I asked—that you had talked with that n----r—that thing with, um—I had told you to ask— to ask that n----r that sh-t? Bree: Yeah. Sauce: What did he have to say? Bree: He say he—about whoever broke into his house? Sauce: No, ain’t nobody break into his house. About when his house got ran in. I’m talking about with him and that ho going to court. That’s what I’m talking about. Bree: Oh. He said that he not going. He say the only reason he had to do that because he had insurance on [unintelligible] rock like that. He’s like tell that n----r call my phone. Sauce: Ask him what—man, did he say if that ho gonna go? Bree: I’m pretty sure she ain’t gonna go if he ain’t gonna go. He—I’m about to call him. Sauce: Yeah . . . hey, look, call that n----r. Tell that n----r, man . . . tell Cuz, man, all I got to do—I be rid of this case soon. Tell him they ain’t got sh-t. . . . Tell him that when I get out, I got ten bands for him if he let me hit the streets. Bree: He say he ain’t worried about it about what he tell anyone. He’s like done [unintelligible] said he wasn’t going to court. He was like, tell him he ain’t got to worry about that. . . . [unintelligible] tell you to call him.
.....
Sauce: Hey, look, just whenever you talk with that n----r, tell that n----r, um, that I’m planning on . . . getting my little brother to go like . . . to pay my lawyer and sh-t. Next time he gotta go pay him, I’m going to get Cuz to, um, to get an affidavit to give it to you. Tell him to get that ho to sign that bitch for me, man. Bree: Alright. 20 Sauce: You think he gonna do it? Bree: I’m sure. He probably is like I said. He said the only reason [he] had to do this is ‘cause . . . he say he know you weren’t the one who ran into his house – that you were just a driver or whatever, or some sh-t.
At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Sears moved for an instructed verdict
of not guilty. The trial court denied Sears’s motion. Sears did not testify at trial or
call any witnesses to testify on his behalf, and after closing arguments, the jury found
Sears guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment. At the punishment
phase of the trial, Sears pleaded “true” to three enhancement allegations, and after
hearing additional evidence presented by the State, the jury assessed punishment at
twenty-five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.3 Sears timely filed this appeal.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first issue, Sears challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction for aggravated robbery. Specifically, Sears contends that the evidence
is insufficient to show: (1) that he is criminally responsible as a party for the
aggravating element of the offense; or (2) that he solicited, encouraged, directed,
aided, or attempted to aid the primary actors to commit the aggravated robbery while
acting with the specific intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense.
3 The record reflects that Sears’s punishment was assessed in accordance with the punishment range applicable to a first-degree felony enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (West Supp. 2016). 21 A. Standard of Review
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the
standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). See Brooks v.
State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Under that standard, we view
all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine, based on
that evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom, whether any rational
factfinder could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
(citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19). “The jury is the sole judge of credibility and
weight to be attached to the testimony of the witnesses.” Id. In this role, the jury may
choose to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by the parties.
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Further, the jury
is permitted to draw multiple reasonable inferences from facts as long as each is
supported by the evidence presented at trial. Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 360. When the
record supports conflicting inferences, we presume that the jury resolved those
conflicts in favor of the verdict and therefore defer to that determination. Id.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all of the evidence
in the record, regardless of whether it was properly admitted. Clayton v. State, 235
22 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Direct and circumstantial evidence are
equally probative of an actor’s guilt, and “‘circumstantial evidence alone can be
sufficient to establish guilt.’” Temple, 390 S.W.3d at 359 (quoting Hooper v. State,
214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). In a circumstantial evidence case, each
fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the defendant so long
as the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances
warrants the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. Id. at 359–60 (quoting Johnson
v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.
“After giving proper deference to the factfinder’s role, we will uphold the verdict
unless a rational factfinder must have had reasonable doubt as to any essential
element.” Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
The jury charge in the present case authorized the jury to convict Sears of
aggravated robbery either as a principal or as a party. In a general verdict, the jury
found Sears guilty of aggravated robbery. Because the evidence is insufficient to
support Sears’s conviction as a principal,4 we address whether the evidence is
sufficient to support his conviction under the law of parties.
4 The State’s theory from voir dire examination to its final argument was that Sears was the getaway driver for the men who robbed Brown’s home and that Sears’s guilt depended upon the law of parties. At trial, the undisputed evidence shows that Sears was driving a red Toyota Tundra pick-up truck in front of or in the vicinity of Brown’s house when the robbery occurred. There was no evidence that Sears was 23 B. Applicable Law
A person commits robbery if, in the course of committing theft and with intent
to obtain or maintain control of the property, he intentionally or knowingly threatens
or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death. Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 29.02(a)(2) (West 2011). A person commits aggravated robbery if he commits
robbery and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. Id. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). A
firearm is a deadly weapon per se. Id. § 1.07(a)(17)(A) (West Supp. 2016); Ex parte
Huskins, 176 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, the indictment alleged,
and the State was required to prove, that Sears, “while in the course of committing
theft of property owned by [LAURA BROWN] . . . and with intent to obtain and
maintain control of said property, intentionally and knowingly threaten[ed] and
place[d] [Brown] in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, by using and
exhibiting a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm[.]”
“A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is
committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally
one of the three masked men who entered Brown’s home. There was also no evidence that Sears personally threatened or placed Brown in fear of imminent bodily injury or death while in the course of committing a theft or that Sears personally used or exhibited a deadly weapon at any time. On appeal, the State does not argue that any evidence exists to support Sears’s conviction on a theory of principal liability. 24 responsible, or by both.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.01(a) (West 2011). “A person is
criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if . . . ,
acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits,
encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the
offense[.]” Id. § 7.02(a)(2).
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Aggravating Element of the Offense
Sears argues that there is insufficient evidence to show that he is criminally
responsible as a party for the aggravating element of the offense—i.e., the use or
exhibition of a deadly weapon. “A conviction for an aggravated offense must be
supported by evidence that the defendant committed, or was criminally responsible
for committing, the aggravating element.” Wyatt v. State, 367 S.W.3d 337, 340–41
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) (citing Stephens v. State, 717
S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). In an aggravated robbery case in which
the aggravating element is the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, the defendant
may only be held criminally responsible for the aggravating element under a theory
of party liability if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
knew a deadly weapon would be used in the course of committing the robbery.
Jackson v. State, 487 S.W.3d 648, 656 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.);
Adkins v. State, 274 S.W.3d 870, 875 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); 25 Rodriguez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 551, 563 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet.
ref’d). Specifically, “‘there must be direct or circumstantial evidence that [the
defendant] not only participated in the robbery before, while, or after a [deadly
weapon] was displayed, but did so while being aware that the [deadly weapon]
would be, was being, or had been, used or exhibited during the offense.’” Wyatt, 367
S.W.3d at 341 (quoting Anderson v. State, No. 14-00-00810-CR, 2001 WL 1426676,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 15, 2001, pet. ref’d) (not designated
for publication)). “Otherwise, ‘the evidence necessary to convict [the defendant] as
a party to aggravated robbery would be no different than that to convict him as a
party to (ordinary) robbery, i.e., mere participation in the robbery.’” Id. (quoting
Kanneh v. State, No. 14-00-00031-CR, 2001 WL 931629, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 16, 2001, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication)).
We agree with Sears that even if the jury believed that Sears participated in
the robbery as the getaway driver for the three men who committed the robbery
inside Brown’s home, the record contains no evidence that Sears was aware that any
firearm or other deadly weapon would be, was being, or had been used or exhibited
during the offense. See Wyatt, 367 S.W.3d at 341. The record contains no evidence
that the three masked men exhibited or otherwise made Sears aware of their firearms
at any time before they entered Brown’s house. The record also contains no evidence
26 that Sears became aware that firearms were being used or exhibited by the three men
inside the house while the robbery was in progress. The undisputed evidence
presented at trial shows that while the masked men were committing the robbery
inside Brown’s home, Sears was in a red Toyota Tundra in front of or in the vicinity
of Brown’s house. There is no evidence that Sears entered Brown’s house at any
time while the robbery was being committed. The jury heard testimony that Kadrian
Cormier escaped through a bathroom window during the robbery and flagged down
a vehicle, which happened to be the red Toyota Tundra that Sears was driving.
Although there is evidence that Cormier tried to explain to Sears “what was going
on and that he needed to call to the police to get help,” there is no evidence that
Cormier told Sears that the intruders inside the house had guns or other weapons.
Further, there was no evidence that Sears could see into the home through the
windows or otherwise to see what was happening inside.
The record also contains no evidence to show that after the robbery, Sears
became aware that the masked men had used or exhibited firearms during the
commission of the offense. While there is evidence that a witness saw three men in
dark clothing emerge from a ditch close to Brown’s house and jump into a red truck
bearing the same license plate as the truck that Cormier had seen Sears driving
several minutes earlier, the witness testified that he could not see if the men had
27 anything in their hands. Thus, even if the jury reasonably believed that the three men
the witness saw getting into the truck were the same men who had robbed Brown
and that Sears was the one who was driving the red truck when the three men jumped
into it, the witness’s testimony does not establish that the three men were visibly
displaying any firearms when they got into the truck or that after getting into the
truck, they showed Sears their firearms or made Sears aware that they had used or
exhibited firearms during the commission of the robbery. Further, when Sears was
arrested two days after the robbery driving the same red truck, there is no evidence
that any firearms were located inside the truck.
In its brief on appeal, the State has not pointed to any evidence in the record
that Sears knew that a firearm or other deadly weapon would be used during the
commission of the robbery, and we have found none in our review of the evidence
presented at trial. “‘Although it would intuitively seem likely’” that Sears knew or
saw the three men’s guns before or after the robbery, “‘without at least circumstantial
evidence to support it, such a conclusion cannot properly be based on speculation or
assumption.’” Wyatt, 367 S.W.3d at 343 (quoting Kanneh, 2001 WL 931629, at *3).
We therefore sustain Sears’s first issue to the extent he argues that the evidence is
insufficient to show that he is criminally responsible as a party for the aggravating
element of the offense.
28 D. Reformation of the Judgment
Having concluded that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Sears is
criminally responsible under a theory of party liability for the aggravating element
of his aggravated robbery conviction, it follows that the evidence is insufficient to
support a finding that Sears is guilty of aggravated robbery. See Lockett v. State, 874
S.W.2d 810, 818 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, pet. ref’d). However, under the
indictment in this case, robbery is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery,
the difference between the two being only the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2); Penaloza v. State, 349
S.W.3d 709, 711 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d). Under certain
circumstances, courts of appeals should reform the judgment to reflect a conviction
for a lesser-included offense when the evidence is insufficient to show that the
defendant is guilty of the greater offense for which he was convicted. See Thornton
v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289, 299–300 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). To determine if we must
reform the judgment in such a manner, we must ask two questions: (1) whether, in
the course of convicting Sears for aggravated robbery, the jury must have necessarily
found every element necessary to convict Sears for the lesser-included offense of
robbery; and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for
robbery. See id. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then we are “required
29 . . . to avoid the ‘unjust’ result of an outright acquittal by reforming the judgment to
reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense.” Id. at 300.
First, as noted, the elements of robbery and aggravated robbery, as they relate
to this case, are the same except that aggravated robbery requires an additional
finding that the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2). Therefore, when the jury found Sears guilty of
aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment, it necessarily found him guilty of
the lesser-included offense of robbery. See Lucero v. State, 915 S.W.2d 612, 615
(Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d); Hester v. State, 909 S.W.2d 174, 181 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
Second, we examine whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that Sears is
guilty of the lesser-included offense of robbery. See Thornton, 425 S.W.3d at 300.
When, as here, the evidence shows that the defendant was not a primary actor, but
is at most responsible as a party for the actions of the primary actor, the State “must
prove conduct constituting an offense[,] plus an act by the defendant done with the
intent to promote or assist such conduct.” Beier v. State, 687 S.W.2d 2, 3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1985). To prove the requisite intent to promote or assist the commission of the
offense, “[t]here must be sufficient evidence of an understanding and common
design to commit the offense.” Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. Crim.
30 App. 2012). In other words, the evidence “must show that at the time of the
commission of the offense[,] the parties were acting together, each doing some part
of the execution of the common purpose.” Brooks v. State, 580 S.W.2d 825, 831
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Whether an accused participated as a party to
an offense may be determined by examining the events occurring before, during, and
after the commission of the offense and by the actions of the accused that show an
understanding and common design to commit the offense. Gross, 380 S.W.3d at 186.
Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove that the accused was a party to the
offense. Id. The “mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime, or even flight
from the scene, without more, is insufficient to support a conviction as a party to the
offense.” Id. Similarly, proof that an accused assisted the primary actor in making
his getaway, standing alone, is also insufficient to prove liability as a party, even if
the accused’s conduct may constitute the independent offense of hindering
apprehension or prosecution. See Urtado v. State, 605 S.W.2d 907, 911-12 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Wooden v. State, 101 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d). However, evidence that the defendant was present at
the scene or assisted the primary actor in making his getaway may combine with
other facts to show that the accused was a participant in the offense. See Thompson
v. State, 697 S.W.2d 413, 417 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985), superseded by statute on
31 other grounds as stated in Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471, 476 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995); Guillory v. State, 877 S.W.2d 71, 74–75 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1994, pet. ref’d).
In his brief, Sears does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show
that the three men who entered Brown’s home, held her at gunpoint, and stole her
money and jewelry committed the offense of robbery (and the greater offense of
aggravated robbery). Instead, Sears argues, as we understand it, that there is no
evidence: (1) that he committed an act that solicited, encouraged, directed, aided, or
attempted to aid the three masked men to commit the robbery; or (2) that he
committed such an act with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the
robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2). Sears argues that the evidence, at
most, shows only that he was “in the area” in a red Toyota Tundra when the robbery
was committed and that “three men were later seen coming out of a ditch and
entering into [the] same vehicle that Sears was previously identified as driving.” He
contends that this evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt as a party to the
robbery because the three men who were seen getting into the red truck were never
identified, there is no evidence that they were involved in the robbery at Brown’s
house, and there is no evidence that Sears was driving the red truck when the three
men jumped into it. We disagree.
32 First, the jury heard evidence from which it could reasonably infer that Sears
committed acts that aided in the commission of the robbery. Although Kadrian
Cormier did not testify at trial, the jury heard testimony from two witnesses—the
detective and one of the officers who responded to the robbery—who testified that
they spoke to Cormier after the robbery occurred. According to their testimony,
Cormier told them that when the three men entered Brown’s house, he escaped
through a bathroom window and flagged down a red Toyota Tundra pick-up truck
that he saw “in front of the house” or “near . . . Brown[’s] driveway.” Cormier later
identified Sears as the driver of the truck in a photo lineup. Once inside the truck,
Cormier explained to Sears “what was going on and that he needed to call the police
to get help.” Sears, however, refused to let Cormier use his cell phone to report the
crime. When Cormier began to suspect that “something wasn’t right” and that Sears
might be involved in the robbery, he told Sears that he wanted to get out of the truck.
However, Sears responded, “I bet you do, mother f----r[,]” and refused to let Cormier
leave, then drove the truck out of Brown’s neighborhood with Cormier still in the
vehicle. Cormier stated that he ultimately had to jump out of the truck to escape.
After jumping out of the truck, Cormier was able to obtain the truck’s license plate
number, which he later reported to the police. When Cormier returned to Brown’s
house a short time later, Brown called 911 to report the robbery, and both Brown
33 and Cormier spoke to the 911 operator. Based on the timing of that 911 call,
Cormier’s encounter with Sears occurred a short time before 6:09 a.m.
The jury also heard testimony from another witness, who testified that he
observed a red truck traveling north on Dowlen Road on the morning of the robbery.
That witness testified that the truck caught his attention because it stopped short of
the intersection it was approaching and began driving in reverse. The truck backed
up until it came to a drainage ditch. There was testimony that the drainage ditch ran
behind the street on which Brown’s house was located. The witness testified that
when the truck reached the ditch, he observed three men in dark clothing come
running out of the ditch and get into the truck. The witness’s description of the three
men who emerged from the ditch was consistent with the description of the robbers
provided by Brown, who testified that three men who broke into her house were
wearing dark clothing. The witness testified that once the three men got into the
truck, he was able to see the truck’s license plate number as it drove away, and he
called 911 to report the truck’s activities and its license plate number. The evidence
shows that the witness called 911 at approximately 6:01 a.m.
The detective who investigated the robbery testified that the license plate
number reported by the witness was the same license plate number identified by
Cormier as belonging to the red Toyota Tundra that he had flagged down in front of
34 Brown’s house while the robbery was in progress. Further, the detective testified
that through his investigation, he learned that the license plate number reported by
the witness and Cormier was registered to a vehicle that had been rented to Crystal
Foxall. At trial, Foxall admitted that she rented a red Toyota Tundra for Sears in
February or March of 2013. The detective testified that Sears was arrested two days
after the robbery driving a red Toyota Tundra with the same license plate number as
the one reported by the witness and Cormier. During a subsequent interview with
police, Sears admitted that he was “in the area” in the red Toyota Tundra at the time
of the robbery and that someone had jumped into his vehicle that morning, but he
denied any participation in the robbery. Finally, the jury heard telephone calls from
the jail allegedly made by Sears speaking with others about the crime and the actors
involved.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
that the jury could have reasonably inferred that Sears was the driver of the red
Toyota Tundra that Cormier flagged down in front of Brown’s house while the
robbery was in progress; that Sears was driving the same red Toyota Tundra a short
time later when the witness observed it on Dowlen Road picking up three men who
ran out of a drainage ditch; and that the three men who ran out of the drainage ditch
were the same three men who had robbed Brown at gunpoint. See Hooper, 214
35 S.W.3d at 15–16 (noting that juries may “draw multiple reasonable inferences as
long as each inference is supported by the evidence presented at trial” and explaining
that “an inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a
logical consequence from them”). Accordingly, we conclude that the jury could have
reasonably inferred from the evidence that Sears committed acts that aided in the
commission of the robbery by: (1) taking steps to prevent Cormier from calling the
police to report the robbery; and (2) serving as the getaway driver for the men who
committed the robbery in Brown’s home. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2).
We also conclude that there was evidence from which the jury could have
reasonably inferred that Sears committed these acts with the intent to promote or
assist the commission of the robbery. See id. Brown testified that when the three men
broke into her house, one of the men grabbed her and asked, “Do you know where
he is?” Another one of the men then searched the house to see if anyone else was
present. There was also testimony that one of the intruders asked, “Where’s the
money?” and when one of the intruders looked under Brown’s bed, the man said,
“[L]ook, it’s right here, it’s right here.” Further, as already noted, the evidence shows
that at the time the three masked men broke into Brown’s house, Sears was outside
in a red Toyota Tundra in front of Brown’s house. When Cormier flagged down
Sears’s truck to ask for help, Sears refused to let Cormier use his cell phone to report
36 the robbery. When Cormier began to suspect that Sears might also be involved in
the robbery, Cormier told Sears that he wanted to get out of the truck, but Sears
refused, stating, “I bet you do, mother f----r.” Sears then drove out of the
neighborhood with Cormier still in the truck, and Cormier eventually had to jump
out of the vehicle to escape. The evidence shows that the same red Toyota Tundra
was seen a short time later stopping on Dowlen Road, backing up to a drainage ditch
that ran behind Brown’s house, picking up three men who matched the description
of the men who broke into Brown’s house, and driving away.
Additionally, although Darrell Bendy testified that he could not recall making
a statement to law enforcement concerning Sears’s involvement in the robbery, the
detective testified, without objection, that Darrell Bendy reported to him information
about Sears’s admitted involvement in the robbery. The State also presented
testimony from the detective that Sears is a known drug dealer who targets other
dealers, and there was at least some evidence that Cormier is also a drug dealer.
Finally, the State presented recordings of telephone calls that Sears made while
incarcerated in the county jail, in which Sears discussed plans with various family
members and acquaintances to keep someone named “K” from showing up at trial.
Based on the content of the recorded calls and the fact that Cormier was a primary
witness against Sears but did not testify at trial, the jury could have reasonably
37 inferred that “K” was Kadrian Cormier. Evidence of attempts by the defendant to
suppress testimony of a witness is probative of a consciousness of guilt. Hedrick v.
State, 473 S.W.3d 824, 830 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.);
Roberts v. State, 795 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1990, no pet.).
Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could have reasonably inferred that
at the time the robbery occurred, Sears and the three masked men had a common
plan to commit the robbery at Brown’s house; that Sears was waiting in his truck for
the three men to come out of Brown’s house when Cormier flagged down his
vehicle; that when Cormier got into Sears’s truck, Sears recognized Cormier as one
of the intended victims of the robbery and took steps to prevent him from contacting
the police; and that after Cormier escaped from the truck, Sears returned to an area
near Brown’s house, picked up the three robbers in his truck, and helped them make
their getaway from the crime scene. See Gross, 380 S.W.3d at 186 (explaining that
a reviewing court may look to events occurring before, during, and after the
commission of the offense and may rely on circumstantial evidence to determine
whether the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant was a party to the
offense); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 15-16. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably
inferred that Sears acted with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the
robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2).
38 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude
that the evidence is legally sufficient to support Sears’s guilt as a party to the lesser-
included offense of robbery. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Temple, 390 S.W.3d at
360. Because we have answered both questions under the Thornton analysis
affirmatively, we reform the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included
offense of robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2); Thornton, 425 S.W.3d
at 299-300.
III. Accomplice Witness Testimony
In his fourth issue, Sears argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction for aggravated robbery because Cormier was an accomplice witness and
the State failed to sufficiently corroborate Cormier’s statements with other evidence
at trial. Sears argues that because Cormier’s statements to law enforcement agents
constitute the only evidence tending to show that he was the driver of the red Toyota
Tundra at the time of the robbery and those statements were uncorroborated at trial,
there is legally insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “[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.”
39 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (West 2005). An accomplice is a person who
participates in the offense before, during, or after its commission and acts with the
required culpable mental state. Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 498 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). “Participation requires an affirmative act that promotes the commission
of the offense with which the defendant is charged.” Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744,
748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Simply having knowledge of the offense and not
disclosing that information, or even trying to conceal the information, does not
render a witness an accomplice. Id. Additionally, mere presence at a crime scene
does not make an individual an accomplice. Id. A person is an accomplice only if,
under the evidence, he could have been charged with the same or a lesser-included
offense as that with which the defendant was charged. Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d
504, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Whether the person is actually charged and
prosecuted for his participation is irrelevant to the determination of accomplice
status; what matters is the evidence in the record. Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451,
455 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
“When the evidence clearly shows (i.e., there is no doubt) that a witness is an
accomplice as a matter of law, the trial judge must instruct the jury accordingly.
Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). An instruction that a
witness is an accomplice as a matter of law is appropriate, for example, “when the
40 witness is charged with the same offense as the defendant or a lesser-included
offense or when the evidence clearly shows that the witness could have been so
charged.” Druery, 225 S.W.3d at 498. “When 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.” Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 439–
40. If the evidence clearly shows that a witness is not an accomplice, the trial judge
is not required to instruct the jury on the accomplice witness rule as a matter of law
or fact. Id. at 440.
In the present case, the trial court did not submit an instruction to the jury on
Cormier’s status as an accomplice witness as a matter of law or as a question of fact.
Sears did not object to the jury charge on this basis, and he does not argue on appeal
that the trial court should have given the jury either instruction. Nevertheless, Sears
argues that Cormier was an accomplice because “[t]here was evidence to suggest
that the aggravated robbery was an inside job done with the help of Cormier” and
that Cormier’s statements were therefore subject to the corroboration requirement
set forth in article 38.14.
At trial, the second officer to testify on behalf of the State testified that when
he spoke to Brown at the scene, she told him that at the time of the robbery, she,
Cormier, and a female friend were the only people who knew that she had received
41 an income tax refund and that only she and Cormier knew where the money was
located in her house. He testified that Brown also told him that when the intruders
entered her home, they went straight to where the money was hidden, took the
money, and left. According to the officer, Brown stated that it was as though the
intruders knew exactly where the money was. The officer testified that these facts
suggested to him at the time that the robbery was an inside job, meaning that
someone who knew where the money was hidden had been working with the
intruders. Further, the first officer to testify for the State explained that when he
walked through Brown’s house after the robbery, nothing in the house appeared to
be disturbed except for a broken lamp and the broken door through which the robbers
had entered the house. He testified that it did not appear as though the robbers had
searched through the entire house. Sears argues that the foregoing testimony of the
two police officers supports a finding that Cormier was an accomplice in the
aggravated robbery. We disagree.
Neither the testimony of the two police officers, nor any other testimony
presented at trial, establishes that Cormier participated in the commission of the
aggravated robbery at any time while acting with the requisite culpable mental state.
See Druery, 225 S.W.3d at 498. There is no evidence that Cormier told anyone,
much less Sears or the intruders, about the existence of Brown’s money or where it
42 was hidden before the aggravated robbery occurred. However, even if the evidence
did support a finding that Cormier told the intruders about the money before the
aggravated robbery occurred, there was no evidence that Cormier did so with the
intent or knowledge that the intruders would use that information to rob Brown.
There is also no evidence that Cormier engaged in any acts during or after the
robbery that promoted the commission of the offense. To the contrary, the evidence
shows that when the three masked men entered Brown’s house, Cormier escaped
through a bathroom window and flagged down two vehicles in an effort to contact
the police. Although the evidence reflects that Sears, at least temporarily, prevented
Cormier from contacting the police, Cormier ultimately did get in touch with the
authorities shortly after the robbery was over and provided them with details about
the intruders’ getaway vehicle. Accordingly, there is no evidence to show that
Cormier could have been charged with the same offense or a lesser-included offense
as that with which Sears was charged. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 7.02(a)(2),
29.02, 29.03(a)(2); Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 510. We therefore conclude that the
evidence does not show that Cormier was an accomplice as a matter of law or as a
matter of fact and that article 38.14 does not apply to Cormier’s statements.
Further, the record reflects that Cormier did not testify at trial. Only in-court
accomplice testimony is subject to article 38.14’s corroboration requirement.
43 Bingham v. State, 913 S.W.2d 208, 210–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (op. on reh’g).
The State, therefore, was not required to offer evidence corroborating Cormier’s out-
of-court statements. We overrule Sears’s fourth issue.
IV. Admission of Recorded Telephone Calls
In his second issue, Sears challenges the trial court’s admission of the
recordings of the three telephone calls that Sears made while confined in the
Jefferson County jail. He argues that the recordings were inadmissible because the
State did not properly authenticate the recordings. He also argues that the recordings
were inadmissible because their probative value was substantially outweighed by
their prejudicial effect. We review a trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence
for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies outside the zone of
reasonable disagreement.” Id.
A. Authentication
The issue of authentication arises when “‘the relevancy of any evidence
depends upon its identity, source, or connection with a particular person, place,
thing, or event.’” Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545, 548–49 (Tex. App.—Austin
2012, no pet.) (quoting Shea v. State, 167 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005,
pet. ref’d)). “Evidence has no relevance if it is not authentically what its proponent
44 claims it to be.” Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Rule
901(a) of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that for a party to satisfy the
requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, “the proponent
must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
proponent claims it is.” Tex. R. Evid. 901(a). Whether the proponent of evidence
has satisfied this threshold requirement is a preliminary question of admissibility to
be decided by the trial court. Tex. R. Evid. 104(a); Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638. Rule
901, however, “‘does not erect a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be
cleared by circumstantial evidence.’” Campbell, 382 S.W.3d at 549 (quoting Peter
T. Hoffman, TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE HANDBOOK, Article IX at p. 948 (8th ed.
2008-09)). “The proponent of [the] evidence does not need to ‘rule out all
possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond any doubt that the
evidence is what it purports to be.’” Id. In fact, in performing its gate-keeping
function under Rule 104(a), “the trial court itself need not be persuaded that the
proffered evidence is authentic.” Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638. Rather, the ultimate
question of whether an item of evidence is what its proponent claims it to be is a
question for the factfinder. Id. In a jury trial, “[t]he preliminary question for the trial
court to decide is simply whether the proponent of the evidence has supplied facts
45 that are sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence he has
proffered is authentic.” Id.
Rule 901(b) provides a nonexclusive list of methods for authenticating
evidence. Tex. R. Evid. 901(b). Relevant to the present case are the following:
(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.
....
(5) Opinion About a Voice. An opinion identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.
Tex. R. Evid. 901(b). “The trial judge does not abuse his or her discretion in
admitting evidence where he or she reasonably believes that a reasonable juror could
find that the evidence has been authenticated or identified.” Druery, 225 S.W.3d at
502.
1. Authentication of the Recorded Telephone Calls at the Hearing on the State’s Motion for a Finding of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
Sears first argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the
recorded telephone calls into evidence at a hearing on the State’s motion for a finding
of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion for a finding of
forfeiture by wrongdoing, asserting that Sears had engaged in wrongful acts that
46 were intended to, and did, dissuade Cormier from testifying at trial. In the motion,
the State sought a ruling from the trial court: (1) that Sears had forfeited his Sixth
Amendment right to confront Cormier at trial under the doctrine of forfeiture by
wrongdoing; and (2) that Cormier’s testimonial, out-of-court statements to the police
were therefore admissible at trial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause even if
Cormier did not testify at trial and Sears had no prior opportunity to confront and
cross-examine Cormier. After voir dire, but before opening arguments, the trial court
held a hearing on the State’s motion outside the presence of the jury. During the
hearing, the State offered into evidence the three recorded telephone calls made by
Sears while confined in the Jefferson County jail. Sears objected to the admission of
the recordings on the ground that the State had failed to sufficiently identify Sears
as the person who had made the calls. The trial court overruled Sears’s objection,
and the recordings were admitted into evidence for purposes of the hearing. On
appeal, Sears contends that the trial court erred by admitting the recordings into
evidence at the hearing because the recordings were not properly authenticated under
Rule 901.
Rule 101 of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that, with the exception of
the rules governing privileges, the rules of evidence “do not apply to . . . the court’s
determination, under Rule 104(a), on a preliminary question of fact governing
47 admissibility[.]” Tex. R. Evid. 101(e)(1). Similarly, Rule 104 states: “The court must
decide any preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is admissible. In so
deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.” Tex.
R. Evid. 104(a). The hearing on the State’s motion for a finding of forfeiture by
wrongdoing involved a determination under Rule 104(a) of preliminary questions
concerning the admissibility of certain evidence—namely, the out-of-court
statements made by Cormier to the police. See Gonzalez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 114,
125 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting with approval that “[s]everal pre- and post-
Crawford cases have cited Rule 104(a) as the proper mechanism for the trial court
to use in deciding whether the forfeiture [by wrongdoing] doctrine applies in a
particular case”). Therefore, the rules of evidence, with the exception of privileges,
did not apply during that hearing. See Tex. R. Evid. 101(e)(1), 104(a). Accordingly,
we conclude that the trial court did not violate Rule 901 by admitting the recordings
into evidence at the hearing on the State’s motion for a finding of forfeiture by
wrongdoing.
2. Authentication of the Recorded Telephone Calls at Trial
Sears next argues that the trial court erred by admitting the recorded telephone
calls into evidence during the guilt-innocence phase of trial because the recordings
were not properly authenticated under Rule 901. At trial, the State presented
48 testimony from a sergeant at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility to
authenticate the three recorded telephone calls. The sergeant testified that she has
responsibility over the facility’s records department at the Jefferson County
Correctional Facility. She explained that all telephone calls made by inmates at the
facility are recorded and screened. The sergeant described how the telephone
recording system works. She testified that to make a call, an inmate must enter his
personal PIN number and use the system’s voice recognition technology, which
identifies the inmate by his voice. She explained that this method of identifying the
inmate caller is used every time a call is made by an inmate at the facility. She
testified that the system also informs the inmate that the call will be recorded.
The sergeant identified State’s Exhibit 49 as the compact disc containing the
recordings of the telephone calls made by Sears. She testified that she had listened
to the recordings on the disc. She explained that the recordings were prepared by a
device capable of making accurate recordings and that the operator was competent
to operate the device. She also testified that the recordings on the disc were accurate
representations of the conversations or statements that took place and did not appear
to be altered in any way. The sergeant testified that she was familiar with Sears from
passing through the jail and stated that she was able to identify Sears’s voice in the
recordings based on what she had heard.
49 In his brief, Sears contends that the State failed to properly authenticate the
recorded telephone calls because there was no evidence that the sergeant had
interviewed Sears or that she otherwise had personal knowledge of Sears’s voice.
We disagree. As noted, the sergeant testified at trial that she was familiar with Sears
from passing through the jail and that she was able to identify Sears’s voice in the
recordings based on what she had heard. We conclude that this testimony sufficiently
established the sergeant’s personal familiarity with Sears’s voice such that she was
qualified to identify Sears as the caller in the recordings. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(5).
Sears also argues that the calls were not sufficiently authenticated because no
one from Global Telelinks, the contracting company that operates and maintains the
phone system at the jail, testified regarding how the phone system is operated or that
the system was working properly at the time the calls were made. In support of this
argument, Sears cites to Banargent v. State, 228 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). In Banargent, the court concluded that recordings of
telephone calls made by the defendant while incarcerated in county jail were
properly authenticated where: (1) there was testimony from a sergeant with the
sheriff’s office that the proffered exhibit contained digital recordings of telephone
calls made by the defendant; (2) a representative from the company that created the
jail’s telephone recording system testified about how the system worked, including
50 how the calls were stored, the types of prompts the system used to inform inmates
that the calls were being recorded, and the types of safeguards the system employed
to insure that the calls were accurately recorded; and (3) a witness with personal
knowledge of the defendant’s voice identified his voice in the recordings. 228
S.W.3d at 396, 401. While we agree that the court in Banargent relied, in part, on
testimony from a representative of the company that created the jail’s telephone
recording system to conclude that the telephone recordings had been properly
authenticated, we do not interpret Banargent or Rule 901 as requiring testimony
from a company representative to properly authenticate such a recording. See id.;
Tex. R. Evid. 901. In other words, while testimony from a representative of the
company that created or that operates the jail’s telephone recording system might be
one way to properly authenticate the recording, it is not the only way. As long as
there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the recordings are what the State
claims them to be, “there is no requirement for testimony from a representative of
the company that operates the system for the county involved.” Chatman v. State,
No. 11-10-00044-CR, 2011 WL 3860437, *4 (Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 31, 2011,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
We also reject Sears’s contention that there is no evidence that the jail’s
telephone recording system was working properly at the time the calls were made.
51 The sergeant testified that the recordings were made on a device capable of making
accurate recordings and that the recordings were accurate representations of the
conversations that took place. We conclude that this testimony could reasonably be
interpreted to mean that the telephone recording system was working properly and
accurately recorded the calls at the time the calls were made. Based on the record
before us, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the evidence
presented was sufficient to support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence
was what the State purported it to be—i.e., recordings of telephone calls made by
Sears while confined in the Jefferson County jail. See Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638.
We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling
Sears’s objection as to the authenticity of the recordings and by admitting the
recordings into evidence at trial. See Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(1), (5).
B. Admissibility of the Recorded Telephone Calls under Rule 403
Sears also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the
recorded telephone calls into evidence at the hearing on the State’s motion for a
finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing and at trial because the nature of the calls was
“highly prejudicial” and “the prejudicial effect far outweighed the probative value.”
We interpret Sears’s argument as complaining that the recorded telephone calls were
admitted in violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 403. Tex. R. Evid. 403 (“The court
52 may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
a danger of . . . unfair prejudice[.]”). As already noted, the rules of evidence, with
the exception of privileges, did not apply during the hearing on the State’s motion
for a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing.5 See Tex. R. Evid. 101(e)(1), 104(a).
Further, the record reflects that Sears did not object to the admission of the recorded
telephone calls on the basis of Rule 403 during the hearing on the State’s motion or
at trial. The only objection that Sears made to the admission of the recorded
telephone calls at the hearing or at trial was that the State did not properly
authenticate the calls. Because Sears failed to object to the admission of the recorded
calls under Rule 403, Sears did not preserve his Rule 403 complaint for our review.
5 Sears contends that article 38.49 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the trial court’s hearing on the State’s motion for a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Article 38.49 specifically states that “Rule 403, Texas Rules of Evidence, applies to this article.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.49(f) (West Supp. 2016). However, article 38.49 was enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2013 and became effective on September 1, 2013. See Act of May 8, 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., ch. 165, § 3, 2013 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 716, 717-18 (West) (codified at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.49 (West Supp. 2016)). The savings clause contained in the bill enacting article 38.49 provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date [Sept. 1, 2013] of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.” See Act of May 8, 2013, 2013 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. at 718. The offense for which Sears was convicted was committed on March 8, 2013, which was before the effective date of the enactment of article 38.49. Therefore, article 38.49 does not apply to this case. 53 See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 255 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2006, no pet.). We overrule Sears’s second issue.
V. Sears’s Right of Confrontation
In his third issue, Sears argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
granting the State’s pre-trial motion for a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing and
admitting the out-of-court statements of Kadrian Cormier into evidence at trial.
Specifically, Sears contends that the State failed to prove that Sears engaged in any
wrongful acts that were intended to, and did, procure Cormier’s absence at trial, as
required under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Sears argues that because
the State failed to establish that the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies in
this case, the trial court’s decision to admit Cormier’s out-of-court testimonial
statements at trial violated Sears’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
“A trial court’s ruling admitting or excluding evidence is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion.” Wood v. State, 299 S.W.3d 200, 207 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009,
pet. ref’d); see also State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
“This means that the ruling will be upheld if it is reasonably supported by the record
and is correct under any applicable legal theory.” Wood, 299 S.W.3d at 207. The
trial court is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the
weight to be given their testimony. State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim.
54 App. 2000). We afford almost complete deference to the trial court’s determination
of historical facts, but we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to
those facts. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see
also Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742–43 & n.44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
(applying hybrid standard of review to Crawford issue); Garcia v. State, No. 03-11-
00403-CR, 2012 WL 3795447, *10 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2012, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (applying hybrid standard of review in
reviewing trial court’s ruling admitting evidence under the doctrine of forfeiture by
wrongdoing). If the trial court does not make findings of fact, we review the evidence
in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and assume the trial court made
findings that are supported by the record and that buttress its conclusion.
Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327–28.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
This constitutional guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer
v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965); Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 641 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2011). The Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of out-of-court
testimonial statements made by a witness who did not appear at trial unless the
55 witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-
examine the witness. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-52, 59 (2004);
Woodall, 336 S.W.3d at 642. However, the right of confrontation is not absolute,
even when testimonial hearsay statements are at issue. Davis v. Washington, 547
U.S. 813, 833 (2006); Gonzalez, 195 S.W.3d at 117. The United States Supreme
Court has recognized that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted, even
though the defendant has had no opportunity to confront the declarant, when the
statements were made by a declarant whose unavailability was procured by the
wrongdoing of the defendant. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 359 (2008); Davis,
547 U.S. at 833. This common-law exception to a defendant’s right of confrontation
is referred to as the doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing.” Giles, 554 U.S. at 359;
Davis, 547 U.S. at 833.
Under the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing, a defendant forfeits the right to
confront a witness if he engages in wrongful conduct that is designed to prevent the
witness from testifying. Giles, 554 U.S. at 359. “The doctrine is based on the
principle that ‘any tampering with a witness should once for all estop the tamperer
from making any objection based on the results of his own chicanery.’” Gonzalez,
195 S.W.3d at 117 (quoting 5 John H. Wigmore, EVIDENCE, § 1406 at 219
(Chadbourn rev. 1974)). The doctrine has been widely used in cases in which a
56 defendant has “intimidated, bribed, or killed a witness to keep him from testifying
about a prior crime[.]” Id. at 118, 125-26; see also Sohail v. State, 264 S.W.3d 251,
259 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d). For the forfeiture-by-
wrongdoing exception to apply, there must be a showing: (1) that the defendant’s
act of misconduct resulted in the declarant’s unavailability; and (2) that the
defendant’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of preventing the witness from
testifying at trial. Giles, 554 U.S. at 359-60; Gonzalez, 195 S.W.3d at 120; see also
Render v. State, 347 S.W.3d 905, 918 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011, pet. ref’d); Davis
v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683, 706 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d). When
applicable, the exception “extinguishes [a defendant’s] confrontation claim[] on
essentially equitable grounds[.]”6 Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62; see also Davis, 547 U.S.
at 833.
As noted, the State filed a pre-trial motion for a finding of forfeiture by
wrongdoing, asserting that Sears had engaged in wrongful acts that were intended
to, and did, procure Cormier’s absence at trial. During the hearing on the State’s
motion, the State presented the testimony of four witnesses. Two of those
witnesses—the police officer who spoke to Cormier at the scene and the detective
6 As already noted, article 38.49 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to this case. 57 who later interviewed Cormier—testified regarding the out-of-court statements that
Cormier made to them after the robbery, including Cormier’s statements regarding
his encounter with the driver of the red Toyota pick-up truck, Cormier’s
identification of the truck’s license plate number, and Cormier’s positive
identification of Sears as the driver of the red Toyota pick-up truck in a photo line-
up prepared by police.
During the hearing, the trial court also heard testimony from the sergeant with
the Jefferson County Correctional Facility whom the State later presented at trial to
authenticate the recorded telephone calls that Sears made while confined in the
Jefferson County jail. The sergeant’s testimony was similar to that which she
provided at trial. During the hearing, the sergeant testified that at the Jefferson
County Correctional Facility, all telephone calls made by inmates are recorded by
the county and screened. She specifically described how the telephone recording
system works. She explained that to make a telephone call, inmates are required to
enter their personal PIN number and use the system’s voice recognition technology.
She testified that this is a requirement that is followed every time an inmate uses the
telephone. She testified that the system also informs the inmate that the call will be
recorded. The sergeant identified State’s Exhibit 6 as the compact disc containing
58 recordings of telephone calls made by Sears.7 She explained that the recordings were
prepared on a device capable of making accurate recordings and that the operator
was competent to operate the device. She testified that she had listened to the
recordings on the disc, that the recordings are accurate representations of any
conversations or statements that took place, and that they did not appear to be altered
in any way. She testified that she was able to identify Sears’s voice on the recordings.
During the hearing, defense counsel took the sergeant on voir dire. During the
voir dire examination, the sergeant testified that in each of the recordings, and before
each telephone call is made, Sears states his name in response to a prompt by the
system, the system’s voice-recognition technology recognizes Sears’s voice, and the
system then permits the call to be made. She further testified that the system recorded
the telephone number that Sears called in each recording.
During the sergeant’s testimony, the State offered into evidence the three
recorded telephone calls that Sears made while incarcerated in the Jefferson County
jail, and the recordings were admitted into evidence for purposes of the hearing. As
noted, in all three recordings, the caller is a male who identifies himself as “Sauce.”
In the first call, Sauce speaks to a male, who is identified in the recording as his
7 The record reflects State’s Exhibit 6, which was admitted at the hearing on the State’s motion for a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing, is identical to State’s Exhibit 49, which was admitted at trial. 59 brother, Donovan. During the call, Donovan tells Sauce that he spoke to “K.” Sauce
asks Donovan what K said, and Donovan responds, “The same thing I told you,
Sauce.” Sauce then asks Donovan if he asked K “about that bitch, too[,]” and
Donovan responds, “I told you, nobody ain’t going to court.” Donovan states, “ET
say he going to be with him to make sure that he don’t go to court.” Sauce then asks
Donovan to clarify if he had said “TC,” and Donovan says, “ET.” Sauce then states,
“Oh, ET. That’s better. That’s better[.]”Later in the conversation, Donovan tells
Sauce that ET had said, “‘I told Sauce from the first time that that n----r and that
bitch ain’t going nowhere towards a court.’” He also states that ET said, “‘Sauce is
my kinfolk. I love Sauce. . . . Before I let another n----r take that kid down, I’m going
to take that n----r down.’” Further, he states that ET said, “‘I swear, I bet on my life,
on my kids, that n----r’s not show up to court . . . . [T]hat n----r don’t want no . . .
problems with nobody else. And . . . if he shows up to court, that’s what it’s going
to be.’”
In the second recording, Sauce calls a woman, whom he identifies during the
call as his mother. His mother refers to him in the call as “Armaud.” During the call,
Sauce tells his mother that he is going to trial that day and the next day and asks his
mother to call Donovan. Sauce tells his mother to tell Donovan to “get in touch with
ET” and to “tell ET to get at that n----r.” Sauce emphasizes that ET needs to do this
60 “today.” Sauce tells his mother to tell Donovan that “he need[s] to make sure . . .
that that little situation’s straight.” Later in the conversation, Sauce tells his mother
to also ask someone named Jay if “he know that n----r, K” and to tell Jay “the same
stuff [he] told [her] to tell Donovan[.]”
Finally, in the third recording, Sauce speaks to two different females, the
second of which is named Bree. Sauce asks the first female to ask Bree if she was
still talking to “that ho” or “that n----r, K.” According to the first female, Bree
responds affirmatively, and Sauce asks the first female to ask Bree “if Cuz . . . is still
f---ing Laura.” Bree then gets on the telephone and speaks directly to Sauce. Sauce
again asks if “Cuz” is “still f---ing Laura[,]” and Bree responds, “Yeah.” Sauce then
asks Bree if she had “talked with that n----r” about “that thing . . . I had told you to
ask[.]” asks, “[A]bout whoever broke into his house?” and Sauce responds, “No, . .
. [a]bout when his house got ran in. I’m talking about with him and that ho going to
court. That’s what I’m talking about.” Bree then states, “Oh. He said he not going.”
Sauce asks, “[D]id he say if that ho gonna go?” and Bree responds, “I’m pretty sure
she ain’t gonna go if he ain’t gonna go[,]” and states that she is “about to call him.”
Sauce then says, “[H]ey, look, call that n----r. . . . Tell him they ain’t got sh-t. . . .
Tell him that when I get out, I got ten bands for him if he let me hit the streets.” Later
in the conversation, Sauce tells Bree, “Hey, look, just whenever you talk with that
61 n----r, tell that n----r . . . that I’m planning on . . . getting my little brother to go . . .
to pay my lawyer and sh-t. Next time he gotta go pay him, I’m going to get Cuz to .
. . get an affidavit to give it to you. Tell him to get that ho to sign that bitch for me,
man.” Bree responds, “Alright.” Sauce then asks Bree if she thinks he will do it, and
Bree says, “I’m sure. He probably is like I said. He said the only reason [he] had to
do this is ‘cause . . . he say he know you weren’t the one who ran into his house—
that you were just a driver or whatever[.]”
The trial court also heard testimony from an investigator with the Jefferson
County District Attorney’s office, who testified that he has heard that Kadrian
Cormier goes by the nickname, “K[.]” He testified that he had participated in efforts
to secure Cormier as a witness in the State’s prosecution of Sears. He explained that
prior to trial, he went to Cormier’s mother’s house several times to talk to Cormier.
While there, he spoke to Cormier’s mother on several of these occasions, but she
told him each time that Cormier was out of town. A week before trial, the
investigator returned to Cormier’s house and spoke to Cormier’s aunt, who told him
that Cormier was in Beaumont and driving a blue car. The aunt also gave him a cell
phone number for Cormier. The investigator testified that although he was able to
use this number to get in touch with Cormier, Cormier would always tell him that he
was on his way to Austin, Houston, or some other location. According to the
62 investigator, Cormier would say that he would be in Beaumont on certain days at
certain times, but then would not show up. The investigator made attempts to find
Cormier at other locations, such as at Cormier’s friends’ houses, but was
unsuccessful. According to the investigator, Cormier seemed very hesitant to testify
and made excuses for not coming in, such as stating that he had to go do something
for his kids or that he was taking his girlfriend to the doctor. The investigator testified
that although he did everything he could, he was never able to meet with Cormier or
serve him with a subpoena to appear at trial. On cross-examination, the investigator
testified that Cormier never expressly told him that he had been threatened by
anyone. The investigator also testified that he has heard that Cormier is a drug dealer
and agreed that that might possibly be a reason why Cormier did not want to testify
at trial.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion and
ruled that Cormier’s out-of-court, testimonial statements to law enforcement officers
would be admitted at trial under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Sears
objected to the trial court’s ruling based on Sears’s Sixth Amendment right of
confrontation. The trial court overruled Sears’s objection, explaining that under the
United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813
63 (2006), and Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), Sears had forfeited his right to
confront Cormier.
On appeal, Sears argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting
the State’s motion for a finding of forfeiture by wrongdoing because the State failed
to present sufficient evidence at the hearing to show: (1) that Sears was the person
who made the recorded telephone calls, or (2) that Sears’s actions, in fact, procured
Cormier’s absence at trial. With respect to his second point, Sears contends that there
is no evidence that any purported threats or bribes made by or on behalf of Sears
were actually communicated to Cormier. Sears also argues that the evidence
presented at the hearing supports numerous, legitimate reasons as to why Cormier
did not appear to testify and that the trial court therefore erred in concluding that
Sears’s absence at trial was the result of Sears’s wrongful actions.
We first address Sears’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by
relying upon the recorded telephone calls because the State failed to make a
sufficient showing that Sears was the person who made the calls. In a hearing to
determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule 104(a), “[t]he trial judge makes
a legal ruling to admit or exclude evidence based upon the relevance and reliability
of the factual information submitted by the parties.” Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530,
536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A trial court abuses its discretion if, in making its ruling
64 on the admissibility of the evidence, it relies on information that is not shown to have
sufficient indicia of relevance and reliability to serve as the factual basis for the trial
court’s ruling. See id. at 536, 539. At the hearing, the sergeant testified that an inmate
must enter his personal PIN number and utilize the system’s voice recognition
technology in order to make a telephone call at the Jefferson County Correctional
Facility. She explained that this is a requirement that is followed every time an
inmate uses the telephone. She testified that she had listened to the specific calls at
issue and that in those calls, Sears stated his name in response to a prompt by the
system, the system successfully recognized Sears’s voice, and the system permitted
the calls to go through. Additionally, the sergeant identified State’s Exhibit 6 as
containing recordings of the telephone calls made by Sears and stated that she was
able to identify Sears’s voice on the recordings. She also explained that the
recordings were prepared on a device capable of making accurate recordings, that
the recordings were accurate, and that they did not appear to be altered in any way.
In all three of the recordings, the caller identifies himself as “Sauce.” In the second
recording, the female that Sauce calls refers to him throughout the call as
“Armaud[.]” Based on this evidence, the trial court could have reasonably concluded
that the same person made all three calls and that that person was Sears.
Additionally, all three of the recordings reference an individual named “K,” and
65 there was testimony at the hearing that Kadrian Cormier goes by the nickname, “K.”
The caller in the third recording also references “Laura,” the name of the
complaining witness in this case. We conclude that the sergeant’s testimony and the
content of the recordings support the trial court’s implied finding that Sears was the
caller in the recorded telephone calls and that the recordings were sufficiently
relevant and reliable to serve as a factual basis for the trial court’s ruling. The trial
court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in relying on the recordings in making
its ruling regarding the admissibility of Cormier’s statements. See Ford, 305 S.W.3d
at 536, 539.
Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s implied findings that
Cormier’s absence at trial was the result of Sears’s misconduct and that Sears
intended to prevent Cormier from testifying. Although the investigator testified that
Cormier gave him several reasons as to why he could not meet with him, including
that Cormier had to do things with his children or that he had to take his girlfriend
to the doctor, the trial court was free to disbelieve the excuses that Cormier gave to
the investigator and instead credit the other evidence in the record tending to show
that Sears had engaged in misconduct prior to trial that was intended to, and did,
prevent Cormier from testifying at trial. This evidence included the investigator’s
66 testimony, which tended to show that Cormier was avoiding the investigator and his
attempts to serve him with a subpoena, as well as the three recorded telephone calls,
which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, reflect that
Sears discussed arrangements with various family members and acquaintances to
threaten and bribe Cormier so that he would not testify at trial. Significantly, in the
third recording, Sears speaks to a female named Bree and specifically asks her if she
has talked to Cormier about “that thing . . . I had told you to ask[.]” When Bree asks
for clarification, Sears states: “About when his house got ran in. I’m talking about
with him and that ho going to court. That’s what I’m talking about.” Bree responds
that she did speak with Cormier and that “[h]e said that he not going.” Thus, contrary
to Sears’ assertions, the record contains evidence from which the trial court could
have reasonably inferred that Cormier received at least some of Sears’s messages or
threats to not come to court. Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Cormier’s out-of-court statements
based on its conclusion that Sears forfeited by wrongdoing his rights under the
Confrontation Clause. See Giles, 554 U.S. at 359-60; Gonzalez, 195 S.W.3d at 120,
125-26. We overrule Sears’s third issue.
67 VI. Conclusion
Because we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support
Sears’s conviction for aggravated robbery, and because we conclude that
modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense
of robbery is appropriate under Thornton, we modify the judgment and render a
conviction for robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2); Thornton, 425
S.W.3d at 299-300. In turn, we further reform the judgment to delete the deadly
weapon finding. As modified, we affirm the finding of guilt. We reverse the portion
of the judgment imposing punishment, and we remand the cause to the trial court for
a new punishment hearing.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN
PART.
_____________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice
Submitted on January 25, 2016 Opinion Delivered January 31, 2017 Do not publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Armaud Sears v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armaud-sears-v-state-texapp-2017.