### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 71 -C R

______________________________ J EFF ERY L EWI S L AI RD, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the F ourth J udicial District Court

Rusk Count y , Texas Trial Court No. CR06-218

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issWe note that the trial cour t's judg ment spells L aird' s first name a s "Jeffr ey "; howe ver, L aird 1 signs his name as " J eff

ery ." T here fore , we have used the spelling " J eff ery " in this opinion. When Bra

ndon Win fr ey an d his cousin M.C., who was thirteen y ear s old at the time, 2 c on c lud e d th e po lic e mig ht b e inv e sti g a tin g a burg lary the y ha d c omm itt e d, the y ha d a sk e d L a ir d if he knew wher e they could obtain a vehicle to le ave town. L aird told M.C. an d W i n fr ey h e knew wher e t h ey co u l d get a truc k. L ater that evening , the three went to Powers' residenc e. Power s operated a tra sh pickup servic e in rura l Rusk C ounty , Texas, and L aird ha d worke d for him in the past. The thre e appr oache d Po wer s' residenc e throug h a fie ld behind the house, a nd L aird proce eded a

round the side of

the house. M.C. saw L aird c ut the telephone line to the house with a butterfly knife a nd then enter the residence throug h the gar ag e. On enteringthe house, L aird be g an beating Po we rs wi t h t h e p i p e. Af

t er b ea t i n g P o we rs s en s el es s , L ai rdt o o k P o we rs ' wa l l et , ch ec k

b ook, and truc k key s. M.C. searc hed the kitch en fo r s omething e lse to steal. The thre e then lef t the residenc e and dr ove to Hicke y Pond where L ai rd disposed of the pipe. B ased on infor mation obtained fr om L aird, the police rec overe d from Hicke y Pond a pipe matchingthe desc ription give n by M.C. Powers' DNA wa s detec ted on the re cover ed pipe. When Powers fa iled to show up for wor k the next morning, J ames Spray berr y , a neig hbor who routinely ch ec ked on Power s due to Powers' health proble ms, went to the reside nce to c heck on him. Spray

berr y discovere d Powers sitting at the dining r oom table with his head on the ta ble. I t appea red Powe rs had trie d to stop the bleeding with paper towels. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Acc ording to acc omplice witness M.C., J eff ery L ewis L aird be at the elde rly Thomas Pow ers 1 with a pipe " three fee t long, be nt in the m iddle, [wit h] a bracke t on the end." The seve rely injured Powers wa s discovere d the next morning and die d almost two months later without ever identifying his a ssa ila

nt. 2 Dr . K e ithPin c ka

rd te sti fi e d th a t Po we rs ' c a

us e of de a th wa s his nume ro us he a lthpr ob le ms "acti ng to gethe r, o ccurri ng as a r esu lt pro x im ate ly of t he b lu nt for ce t raum a."L aird a rg ues that the standa

rds applica

ble to leg al and f

actua l sufficien cy

of the e vidence 3 should apply

to whether t h e corroboration of the a ccomplice witnesses is sufficie nt. But corr obora tion of the ac complice- witness testimony is a statutory

require ment imposed by the L eg islature and is not subject to the usual leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

standards. Cat

he yv . S tate , 9 9 2 S. W. 2 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 2 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )
. L a ir d d o e s n o t c h a ll e n g e th e s u f f ic ie n c y of the e vid e nc e oth e r t

ha n a rguin g the e vid e nc e of

c or ro bo ratio n is ins uf

fi c ie nt. 3 The State indicted L aird for capital murde r. Th e jury found L aird guilty

of the lesse rincluded offense of murder a nd assessed punishment at life imprisonment. L aird a rg ues on appe al that the trial cour

t erre d in denying L aird' s reque sted instruction on causation and that the evidenc e is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to cor

roborate the ac complice- witness testimony . We affir m the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt , c on c lud ing(1 ) t he accom pl ice- wi tne ss t e sti mony wa s su ff ic ie ntl y
corr oborate d and (2) the trial cour t did not err in deny

ing L aird' s reque sted instruction. ( 1) The Acc omplice- W

itness Testimony W

as Sufficiently Corroborat ed L aird a rg ues, in his first point of er ro r, that there is insufficient cor roboration of the
acc omplice witnesses. Under the ac complice-w i t ness rule, one cannot be convicted on the 3 te sti mony of an a c c om pl ice un le ss t

hat te sti mony

is c or ro bo rate d b y

oth e r e vid e nc e te nd ingto
connec t the defe ndant with the offe nse committed. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 38.14 (V ernon 20 05 ). L a ir d ar g ue s the e vid e nc e c or ro bo ra te s o nly L a ir d' s a c tiv iti e s in

F or t Wor th a ft e r t he a ssa ult , and cor roborates only

that L aird wa s prese nt at the sce ne of the cr ime. L aird a rg ues, g iven that the
acc omplices " rec eived r elatively lenient treatment from the district attorney in r eturn for testify ing ag ainst Appellant," the cor roboration is i nsufficie nt.4

To de te rm ine the su ff

ic ie nc y of c or ro bo ra tio n, we mus t vi e w the c or ro bo ra tin g e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the jury ' s verdict. Gi ll v . S tate , 873 S.W .2d 45, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The te st for we ighingthe suffic iency of cor roborating e vid en ce i s to eliminate from consideration the acc omplice' s testimony , and then e x amine the r emaining testimony and evide nce to determine if the re is evide nce that tends to connec t t h e d ef endant with the c ommissi on of the offe nse. Mu no z v . S

tate , 85 3 S.W. 2d 55 8, 55 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Ha ll v. Sta te , 161 S.W .3d 142, 149 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. re f' d). Th e me re pr e se nc e of an accus ed and an a c c omp lic e a t th e sc e ne of the c ri me or

sh or tly befor e or a fter c ommissi on of an of fense is no t i n itself sufficie nt corrobor ation. Go lde n v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 291, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
. But the pre sence of the a ccuse d with the acc omplice witness, when coupled wi th other circumstance s , may be sufficie nt to corrobor ate the te stimony of the ac complice witness. Br own v . S tate , 6 72 S.W. 2d

48 7, 48 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); Jeffery v. Sta te , 1 69 S.W. 3d

43 9, 44 7 ( Tex
. App. —T e xar ka na 20 05 , p e t. r e f' d) . Wh e n d e te rm ini ngif
c or ro bo ratio n o f a

n a c c omp lic e wi tne ss i s su ff ic ie nt, we c on sid e r a ll of

the fa c ts a

nd c ir c ums tanc e s, whether the cor roborative evidenc e be c ircumstantial or dire ct. Br own , 672 S.W .2d at 488. Viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the jury ' s verdic t, the nonacc omplice evidenc e shows more than L aird' s mere prese nce at the s cene of t he crime. L aird ha d a drop of blood on his shoe consistent with Powers' DNA. Out of all the clothin g of the thre e suspec ts tested by the police, L a ir d' s sh oe wa s th e on ly

ite m c on ta ini ngPow e rs ' blo od . A ft e r d isp os ingof the pip e , L a ir d f

le d to For t Worth wit h his a ccomplice s. A convenie nce store video came ra in F ort Worth captured L aird5

and the a ccomplice s toge ther seve ral hours after the assault. When ar

rested in F ort Worth, L aird a nd his acc omplices wer e still in posse ssion of Powers' truck. A sea rch of Powers' pickup truck pr oduced L aird' s driver' s license, a

butterfly knife, a nd a che ck for

$1,300

. 0 0 which desig nated L aird a s the pay ee a nd Powers as the pay or. A jacke t and a pe n, found in the bed of the truck, c ontained DNA
c on sis te nt w ithL a ir d' s D NA . A ft e r b e ingarr e ste d, L a ir d g a ve inf ormatio n to the State that le d to the discover

y of the pipe. L aird' s prese nce at the sce ne couple d with the other c ircumstance s tends to connec t L aird to the murde r. L aird a rg ues the post-a ssault activities are insufficient to cor robo rate the ac complice testimony . The nona ccomplice testimony d oes not have to directly link the acc used to the cr ime, does not have to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and nee d not prove a ll the elements of the alleg ed off

ense. Gi ll , 873 S.W. 2d

a t 48 ; Munoz , 8 53 S.W. 2d a t 55 9; J e ffe ry , 169 S.W .3d at 448. The State wa s not r equire d to c orrobor ate ever y detail testified to by the acc omplices. The f acts a nd circ umstances discusse d above te nd to connec t L aird with the off ense. Th e co rr o b o ra tion of the
acc omplice testimony

was suff icient. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule L aird' s first point of err or. ( 2) The Trial

Court Did N

ot Err in Denying Laird'

s Requeste d Instruction L aird a lso argues the trial court err ed in de nying his r equeste d instruction on causation. The
su bmi tte d ju

ry c ha rg e inc lud e d th e fo llo wi ngins tr uc tio n o n c a

us a tio n: A pe rs on is c ri min a lly re sp on sib le if the re su lt wo uld no t have oc c ur re d bu t f or his conduct, operatingeither a lone or c oncurr ently with another c ause, unle ss the concur rent c ause w as cle arly

sufficie nt to produce the result and the c onduct of the actor clea rly insufficient.6

At trial, L aird re quested the f ollowing instruction be inc luded in the cour t's c harg e: I f y ou believe from the evidenc e or have a re asonable doubt thereof that the death of Thomas Powers, if a

ny , was c aused by

some natura l bodily

ailment or disease , y ou w i l l f i n d t h e d e f e n d an tn o tg u i l t y. The trial c ourt denied L aird' s reque sted instruction.

" A p e rs on is cr imi na lly

re sp on sib le if

the re su lt w ou ld n ot h a ve oc c ur re d b ut f or his c on du c t, op e ratin g e ith e r a lon e or c on c ur re ntl y wi th ano the r c a

us e , unle ss t

he c on c ur re nt c a us e wa s c le arl y
su ffi cie nt to pro du ce t he res ul t and th e con du ct of th e act or cl earl y in su ffi cie nt ." T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 6.04(a) (Ve rnon 2003). This section contains two par ts. The first par

t require s a " but for"
causa l connec tion to be established betwe en the de fenda nt's c onduct and the r esultin g h a rm. Robbins

v . S tat e , 7 17 S.W. 2d

34 8, 35 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Re ms bu rg v. Stat e , 219 S.W .3d 541, 545 (Tex. A pp.—Texarkana 2007, pet. ref ' d). Section 6.04(a) ' s "but for" require ment can b e s at i s fi ed wh e n e ith e r " (1 ) t

he de fe ndant' s c on du c t ma y be su ff ic ie nt b y its e lf to h a ve c a

us e d th e ha

rm , re g ard le ss o f t

he e xiste nc e of a c on c ur

re nt c a us e ; or (2 ) t he de fe nd ant' s c on du c t and the oth e r c a

us e t o ge t h e r m ay

be s uff ici ent to hav e caus ed t he h arm ." Ha le v . S tate , 1 9 4 S
. W
. 3 d 3 9 , 4 2 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2006, no pet.). The second pa rt of the statutory

definition contains an e x ception to the above ge nera l principle. This exception relieve s the defe ndant of c riminal responsibility if the
c on c ur re nt c a us e wa s c le arl y

su ff ic ie nt t o p ro du c e the re su lt and the c on du c t of

the a c tor wa s c le arl y insufficient. Re ms bu rg , 219 S.W .3d at 545. "T he func tion of the jury char g e is to instruc t t h e j u ry on applying the law to the fa cts." Ab dn or v . S tate , 8 71 S.W. 2d

72 6, 73 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 94 ). " [A]n e rr on e ou s o r a n in c omp le te7

jury char g e jeopa

rdizes a def

endant' s righ t to a jury

trial bec ause it fa ils to properly g uide the jury in it s fa ct- fi nd in g funct io n. " Id. When determining whether t h e co u rt err ed by ref using the instruction, we first must deter mine whether

there is evidence to justi fy g iving the instruc tion to the j u ry . "W h en ev i d en ce . . . ra i s es a d ef en s i v e i s s u e, an d

t h e d ef en d an tp ro p er l y

re qu es t s a j u ry

ch ar ge on that issue, the trial cour t must subm it the issue to the jury ." Mu niz v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 238, 254 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); se e Gi bs on v . S tate , 7 2 6 S. W. 2 d

1 2 9 , 1 3 2 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 7 )
. " [A ]n
acc used has the r ight to an instruc tion on any defe nsive issue raised by the evidenc e, whe ther that evidenc e is wea

k or strong , unimpeache d or contra dicted, and re g ardle ss of what the tria l court may
or may no t t hi nk

abo ut th e cred ib il it y

of t he d efen se. " Ha me l v . S tate , 9 1 6 S. W. 2 d

4 9 1 , 4 9 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1996).The a utopsy reve aled that Power s had numerous he alth problems at t h e t i me of de ath. 4 Powers suff

ere d from liver disease, bed sores, adhesions in the i ntestines (a side e ffe ct of surg erie s pe rf or me d wh ile ho sp ita lize d) , pr ior tub e rc ulo sis (whic h w a s in a c tiv e a t th e tim e of de a th) , c hr on ic obstructive pulmonary

disease, a

nd moderate, non-life- threatening corona ry disease. B efor e the a ssau lt, Pow e rs su ff

e re d f ro m se ve re re sp ir a tor

y pr ob le ms. Dr . Pi nc ka

rd te sti fi e d th e se pr ob le ms w e r e p r o b a

b ly th e r e s u lt o f a b o u t w it h tu b e r c u lo s is y e ar s b e f

o r e th e a s s a

u lt
. Sp r ay

b e r r y te s ti f ie d Pow e rs ' re sp ir a tor

y dif fi c ult ie s w e re so se ve re th at P ower s n or ma lly sle pt s itt ingup so he c ou ld br e a the e a sie r. Dr . Pinc ka rd te sti fi e d Powe rs su ff

e re d a skul l fr a c tur e duri ng the a ssa ult
. As a re su lt of the skull fra cture and re sulting surg erie s, Powers deve loped seizures, had a car diopulmonary arr est, deve loped a small bowe l obstruction, and develope d an infec tion whic h cause d his liver and kidney s to shut down. Dr. Pinckard testified these wer e all health proble ms which flowed f rom the or ig ina l tr a

uma to P ow e rs ' he a d. Dr . Pi nc ka rd be lie ve d Po we rs ' de a th w a s caus ed by Pow e rs ' numerous hea lth problems "a cting toge ther, oc curr ing a s a re sult prox imately of t he blunt forc e trauma." Powers testified, "[T] he event which set up that chain of events, g oing ba ck to the orig inal even t t hat caus ed al l o f t hat , wa s t he t raum a to hi s h ead t hat he re cei ved ." The State a

rg ues that the a

bove evide nce did not ra ise th e i s s u e o f concurre nt causation. Acc ording to the State, ther e wa s n o ev i dence of other c auses suff icient to cause death a

bsent the wo un d to the he a d a

nd no e vid e nc e the tr a

uma c a us e d b y L a ir d' s b low

wa s in su ff

ic ie nt t o c a

us e death. On c ross-examination, Dr. Pinckard admitted acute rena l failure, pe ritonitis, and liver failure co u ld b e c a

u s e d b y s o me th in g o th e r th an b r a in tr a u ma . A lt

h o u g h D r . Pi n c k ar d b e li e v ed the c on dit ion s c a

us ingPow e rs ' de a th f

low e d f ro m th e br a in t

ra uma , D r. Pin c ka

rd a g re e d Po we rs ' co n d i t i o nco u l d

h av e "h adn o t h i n g wh at s o ev er t o d o wi t h t h e b ra i nt ra u m a. " Dr
. P i n ck ar d 's testimony is some evidence that other causes may have been sufficient t o cause Powers' death a nd that L air d's condu c t ma

y no t ha ve be e n s uf

fi c ie nt t o c a

us e Pow e rs ' de a th. Whil e the e vid e nc e is weak, L aird wa s entitled to an instruction on concur rent c ausation. 8 Notwithstanding the fac t that L aird was entitled to an ins truction on concur rent c ausation, 4 L aird wa s not e ntitled to the instruction he reque sted. The instruction r equeste d by L aird states that if t h e d e a th o f Po w e r s " w a s c a u s e d b y s o me n a tu

r a l b o d il y a il me n t o r d is e a s e , y o u w il l f ind the de fe nd ant n ot guil ty ." Th e re qu e ste d in str uc tio n r e qu ir es th e jur

y to a c qu it m e re ly

if the re is a
c on c ur re nt c a us e . T his is n ot a

n a c c ur a te state me nt o f t

he law. A de fe nd ant is cr imi na lly re sp on sib le if t h e d ef en d an t's c onduct and a

nother c ause tog ether

cause d the har

m. Ha le , 194 S.W .3d at 42.9

The mer e fa ct that a victim ha s a medical condition, that c auses an assault to r esult in more seve re har m th an it w o u ld in an o th e r v ic ti m, d o e s n o t r e li e v e a d e f e n d an t o f c r im in a l r e s p o n s ib il it y . A
c on c ur re nt c a us e do e s no t r e lie ve a

de fe nd ant o f c ri min a l r e sp on sib ili ty un le ss t he c on c ur re nt c a us e
was c lear ly sufficie nt to produce the result and the conduct of the ac tor was c lear ly insufficient. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 6 .0 4( a ); Re ms bu rg , 219 S.W .3d at 545. The r equeste d char g e does not require the jury

to find either that the c oncurr ent ca uses wer e suff

icient, alone, to cause the death of Powers or that L aird' s conduct wa s insufficient t o ca u s e the death. Se e Hu tc he so n v . S tate , 899 S.W. 2d 39 , 42 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo 19 95 , pe t. re f' d)
. A tri a l court do e s not er r wh e n it de nie s a reque sted instruction wh i ch is misleading or does not prope rly state the law
. Tra

y lor v . S tate , 43 S.W .3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2001, no pet.). B eca use the re quested instruction wa s not a substantially

corr ect state ment of the law , the trial cour t did not err in deny

ing L aird' s reque st. F ur the r, the ins tr

uc tio n g ive n b y the tr ia l court wa s subs tanti a lly c or re c t and a de qu a te to f

ull y p ro t ec tt h e de fe n d an t
. T h e in s t ru ct i o n wa s i d en t i ca l t o S ec t i o n 6
. 0 4 (a ). A s p ec i al re qu es t edch ar ge may be prope rly

ref used whe n the trial cour

t has provided a

corr ect state men t o f t h e law which adequately

protec ts the defe ndant. Du tto n v . S tate , 8 74 S
. W
. 2 d 2 06 , 2 09 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 1994, pet. re f' d). L aird' s second point of e rror is overrule d.10

Be cause there is suf

ficient corr oboration of the a ccomplice -witness testimony and the tria l court did not err

in denying the reque sted instruction on causation, we af fi rm t h e j u d g ment of the tr ia l c ourt
.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: May 27, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh