### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 278 -CR

Chr ist ophe r Lynn Le Blue , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6183 3 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A j u r y c o nv i c t e d

C hr i s t o p h e r

L y n nL e B l u e o f

e n g a g i n g i no r g an i z e d

c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t

y. S ee T e x. P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 7 1
. 0 2 ( W e s t S u p p . 2 0 0 9 )
. P u n i s h m e n t w a s a s s e s s e d a t60 y e a rs ’ imprisonment. L eB lue asser ts that the trial court err ed by 1) admitting evidenc e o f h i s prior convictions; 2) allowingthe jury to consider unc orrobor ated a ccomplice testimo ny ; and 3) fa iling to instruct the jury

that cer tain witnesses qualified a s acc omplices. See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann.
art . 3 8. 14 (We st 2 00 5) (a c c omp lic e te sti mony mus t be c or

ro bo ra te d) . We wi ll a ff

ir m.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND T h e ju ry h ea rd ev i d en ce t h at o nAp ri l 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , L eB l u e p u l l edu p t o a d ri v e- t h ro u gh bank in K illeen, Texas with two other people —Warren Sing er, who sat in the passeng er se at, and L ace y Hig g ins, who sat in the back se at direc tly behind L eB lue. LeBl u e p u l l ed forwa rd so that Hig g in s h ad ac cess to the pne umatic tube conne cting the drive- throug h station to the bank teller.That attempt, like the Apr il 21 attempt, involved a wo m an s i t ting in the ba ck seat of 1 L eB lue’s ca

r and try ing to pass a forg ed instrument using a stolen identification. Bank e mploy ees stalled afte r bec oming suspicious, and L eB lue drove off be fore the transa ction was c ompleted. The ba ckpac k was ha

ng ing on the passeng er se at. 2 2 Hi g g ins pla c e d a

fo rg e d c he c k and sto le n id e nti fi c a tio n c ard int o th e tub e . T he c he c k b e lon g e d to
a wo man name d Br e nd a N. B ro wn and wa s mad e pa y a ble to a wo man name d Mic he lle Willi a ms. Hi g g ins pla c e d Wil liams’ s st ole n id e nti fi c a tio n in the tub e a lon g wi th t

he fo rg e d c he c k, a

pp are ntl y hoping to pa ss for Willi ams so that the teller w ould allow her to c ash the c heck.

The teller beca me suspicious beca

use Hig g ins did not resemble the photog raph on Wil liams’s identification. The te ller ca lled her supe rvisor, who remember ed that the same ca r, driven by the same pe rson, had be en involved in a simil ar attempt to pass a forg ed instrument the p r e v i o u s d ay. As a re sult, bank employ ees c alled the police and then stalled. The teller testified that

1 afte r a while, L eB lue beca me ag itated and told her

throug h the interc om sy stem that he wa s late for work. When the police arr ived, they arr ested L eB lue, Singe r, and H igg ins and s ear ched the ir ca r. I n a dd iti on

to d ru g paraph erna li a, the y

fo un d a ba c kp a c k in

the c ar t hat c on ta ine d s tol e n c he c ks , de po sit sli ps , a nd ide nti fi c a tio ns . Th e arr e sti ng of fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t du

ri ngthe c ours e of

the arr e st, 2 L eB lue stated he was une mploy ed.

B a se d o n th e Ap ri l 21 inc ide nt , a gr and jur y ind ic te d L e B lue fo r e ng a g ingin org anized crime with a predicate offe nse of f org ery . See Tex. Pena l Code § 71.02. The indictment
a lle g e d tw o pr ior fe lony c on vic tio ns fo r e nh anc e me nt p ur po se s. L e B lue ple a de d n ot guil ty , a nd his jury trial commenc ed in Marc h 2008.3 Duringthe trial, L ace y

Hig g ins te s t i fi ed that L eB lue knowing ly participated in her April 21 attempt to pass a for g ed chec k. Ba nk employ ees a

nd the ar restingoffice r also testified about the eve nts of April 21. The tria l court later instructed the jury

t h at b ec au s e Hi g g ins was L eB lue’s acc omplice, her testimony require d corr oboration. SeeTex. Crim . Proc. Code ar t. 38.14. I n addition to Higg ins, the State called se vera l witnesses who testified that they knew L eB lue per sonally

and that L eB lue had be en involv ed i n multipl e for g ery attempts besides the Ap ri l 21 inc ide nt. Duri ngthe jur y -c ha rg e c oll oq uy , the pa rt ie s and the c ourt dis c us se d w he the r t

he se other witnesse s qualified as a ccomplice s whose testimony require d corr oboration. The tr ial court ultimately

did not instruct the jury that these witnesses qualified as acc omplices, and L eB lue did not object to the omission of such an instruction fr om the jury char g e. Duringits case- in-chief

, the State introduce d evidenc e that L eB lue had two pr ior forg ery convictions. L eB lue took the stand and admitted those convictions. He a lso admitted inv o lv e me n t i nth e e xtr an e o u s f o r g e r y a tt e mp ts d e s c r ib e d

b y w it n e s s e s o th e r

th anH ig g in s . He claimed, howe ver, that he did not know Hig g ins w as attempting to pa ss a forg ed che ck on Apr il 21.

Th e ju r y f o u n d L e B lu e g u il ty o f e n g a g in g in o r g an iz e d c r im e b y f o r g e ry for the April 21 incident, and it sentenc ed him to 60 y ear s’ imprisonment. L eB lue subsequently appea led.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We reviewtrial court rulings on the admis sibili ty of evidence for abuse of discre tion. Car ra sc o v . S

tate , 154 S.W .3d 127, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We will uphol d a trial court’s deter mination on the admissibilit y of evide nce if

it is reasonably

supported by

the re cord a

nd corr ect under a ny applicable leg al theory
. Id
.4 W h e nr e v i e w i n g t h e s u f

f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o r

r o b o r a t i n g a c c o mp l i c e t e s t i m o n y, we “ eliminate the ac complice tes ti mo ny f r o m c o n s id e r a

tion a nd then examine the re maining por tions of the re cord to see if there is any evidenc e that tends to c onnect the ac cused w ith the commission of the c rime.” Ma lon e v . S tate , 253 S
. W
. 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). Sufficient cor

roborating e vidence need not itself pr ove the de fenda nt guilt y b ey ond a
rea sonable doubt, but it must l ink the defe ndant “in some way to the commission of the crime a nd show that rational jurors could conc lude that this evidence sufficie ntly tended to conne ct [the
acc used] to the offense .” Id . ( qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . Wh ile me re pr e se nc e a t th e sc e ne of a c ri me does not c onstitut e cor

roboration, “[p] roof that the a ccuse d was at or nea r the sce ne of the crime at or about the time of its commission, when coupled wit h other suspi cious circ umstances, may tend to connec t the acc used t o the crime so as t o furnish sufficient corr oboration to support a c onviction.” Id . (quotation marks omitted). Ea ch ca se must ultim ately be judg ed on its own fac ts. Id
. I n re v i ew i n g wh et h er

a t ri al co u rt erre d

b y o m i t t i n g an ac co mp lice-w itness instruction from a jur y char g e, we first ask whe ther the omission was er ror. Se e Al

ma nz a v . S

tate , 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). I f the omission was err or and the defe ndant timely objected, w e will reve rse unless the error was harmless. Id . I f the omission was er ror but the de fenda

nt did not timely object, we will rever se only i f t h e er ror was so egreg iously harmful that it depr ived the defe ndant of a

fair tr ial. Id . “The differ ence in harm standar ds impacts how strong the
non-ac complice e vidence must be for the e rror in omitti ng an ac complice witness instruction to be considere d harmless.” He rro n v . S tate , 86 S.W .3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).L e B lue c on tin ue s: 3 There is no way

to determine whether appellant actua lly passed the f

org ed item in the prior ca ses, or whe ther he [m ere ly ] acted as a party
. Ad d i t i o n al ly , it is not known wh e ther th e pr ior

c a se s invo lve d a

c he c k, or

so me oth e r d oc ume nt. Th e on ly e vid e nc e is that a

pp e llant was pr e vio us ly

c on vic te d o f f

or g e ry , w hic h is the same of fe ns e he was on

tr ia l f or . App e lla

nt s ug g e sts that un de r t

he fa c ts o f t

his c a se , it would be impossible to lim it the prejudicial e ffe ct of such e vidence
. 5 DI SCU SSIO N L eB lue ra ises three issues. We will address them in turn.
Fir st I ssu e : W he the r the Trial Cour

t Erre d by Admitt

ing Ev idenc eof

Le Blue ’s Prior

Conv ic tio ns L eB lue ar g ues that the trial c ourt should not have admitted evide nce of his two prior forg ery convictions. The State a rgued that the pr ior convictions wer e admissible bec ause the y sug g ested that L eB lue knew Hig g ins was attempting to pass a for g ed che ck on Apr il 21 and intended and planned to aid he r. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b) (evidenc e of prior convictions admissible to show knowledg e, intent, or plan). The trial court a dmitted L eB lue’s prior c onvictions on those bases and i n s t ru ct edt h e j u ry

n o tt o co n s i d er

t h em fo r a n y

o t h er re as o n . Le B l u e a rgu es t h at ev en t h o u gh knowledg e, intent, and plan a re g ener ally

leg itimate bases for

admitting prior c onvictions, admitti ng his pr ior fo rg e ry c on vic tio ns he re wa s p re jud ic ia l and

ins uf fi c ie ntl y pr ob a tiv e be c a

us e “ the State did not attempt to prov e[ ] t he spec ifics of the pr ior offe nses. Instead, [it] mere ly prove[d] t he conviction[s] [by

introducing the J udg ments of C onviction]
. Thus, the j ury was lef t to gue ss whether the prior c onvictions were simil ar to the instant off ense.” 3 L e B l u e c i t e s Bi rl v . S

tate , 763 S.W .2d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, no pet.), for the proposit ion that prior convictions must bear cer tain simil arities to a cha

rg ed off ense,L eB lue m ade this sug g estion sever al way s. First, he e licited testimony from Hig g ins that 4 sh e ne ver saw L e B lue in p os se ssi on of the ite ms s he pa sse d to the ba nk te lle r; that sh e pe rs on a lly passed the items to the teller ; and that she g ot the items from Warre n Singer . Seco n d, L eB lue elicited testimony

from the ba

nk teller that Hig g ins, not L eB lue, passed the s t olen che ck and identification to her. T hird, L eB lue elicited testimony from the a

rre sting office rs that Warren Sing er admitted to owning the contents of the ba ckpac k that was found in L eB lue’s ca r. 6 “such a s proxi mity

in time or place or common mode,” be fore they are sufficie ntly

probative to be admissible. L eB lue ar g ues that such similarity was not demonstrated her e. He also argues that evidenc e of his prior c onvictions was re dundant g iven t hat t he S tate “alrea dy had introduce d sever al other e x trane ous [forge ry ] offenses” throug h witness testimony
. Finally , he ar g ues that he w as harme d beca

use “[w]it hout evidence of the prior convictions, the evidence a g ainst [hi m] would have been f ar le ss compeling [si c].” L eB lue is corr ect that pr ior convictions must be probative to be admissible. See T e x. R. Evi d. 40 3. We ult imate ly g ive wi de de fe re nc e to t ri a l c ourt de te rm inatio ns on

the a dmi ssi bil ity of evide nce, how ever , and we will not overturn such deter minations a s long as they

fall “w ithin the zone of rea sonable disag ree ment.” Mo se s v . S tate , 105 S.W .3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)
. Given the f

acts of this ca se, we cannot sa y the trial cour

t abused its discretion by

admitting evide nce of L e B lu e ’ s p r io r

f o r g e r y c o n v ic ti o n s . T h e St a te intr o d u c e d th e c o n v ic ti o n s o n ly

a f te r L e B lue
re pe a te dly

su g g e ste d, thr ou g h c ro ss- e xami natio ns , th a t he did no t kn owHi g g ins wa s tr

ying to p a ss a for g ed che ck on Apr il 21. By pursuing this tack, L eB lue clea rly place d his knowledg e and intent 4 at i s s u e, and the State wa s entitled to present e vidence on the matter. Se e Brad sh aw v . S

tate , 65 S.W .3d 232, 236 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.) (“When a de fenda nt claims his act was f

ree fr om c ri min a l in te nt, ex tr aneo us of fe ns e s a re re le va nt t o p ro ve g uil ty

int e nt. ” ); Ro bin so n v . S

tate ,I t also arguably rende red a ll of L eBlue’s prior felony convictions, including his forg ery 5 convictions, admissible for impea chment purpose s. SeeTex. R. Evi d. 609(a)
. 7 844 S.W .2d 925, 929 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (State may use e x trane ous offe nse to r ebut defe nsive theory ). Fur thermore , afte r the State introduced the evidenc e of L eB lue’s prior c o n v ic ti o n s , L e B lu e to o k th e s ta n d an d d ir e c tl y te s ti f

ie d th a t h e d id n o t kn o w H ig g in s was
a tte mpt ingto pas s a fo rg e d c he c k o n Apr il 2 1. Re g ard le ss o f what e vid e nc e pr e c e de d it , th is testimony put L eB lue’s knowledge , intent, and plans direc tly at issue. Thus, even if

the trial cour

t 5 orig inally err ed in admitting e vidence of L eB lue’s prior c on v i ct i ons, that err or wa s cure d when L eB lue took the stand and testified as to his knowledg e and intent. Se e Da gge tt v . S tate , 187 S.W .3d 444, 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[I ]f e x trane ous offe nse evide nce is improper ly introduced dur ing the Stat e’ s ca s e-in-c hief, a ny err or may

be cur ed by

the def endant’ s subsequent testimony which ‘opens the door ’ to rebuttal.” ). We overr ule L eB lue’s first issue.
Second Issue: Whether the Trial Court Erred by Allow ing the Jury to Con sider Uncorroborated Ac c omplic eTe

sti mony The tria l c o u rt p r o p e r ly in s tr u c te d th e ju r y th a t H ig g in s w a s ana c c o mp lic e whose testimony

require d corr oboration. See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code ar t. 38.14. L eB lue ar g ues that sufficie nt corrobor ation was not provided. Sp ec i fi ca l l y , he ar gues that (1) all the other w itnesses who testified about his c riminal activities wer e themselve s acc omplices, so their testimony could not
corr oborate Hig g ins’s, and (2) other than that acc omplice t estimony , the evidenc e linking him to the char g ed off

ense me rely

showed that he was pre sent at the sce ne.8 L eB lue is corr ect that acc omplice testimony cannot be corr oborate d solely by other
acc omplice testimony
. Se e As ton v . S tate , 65 6 S.W. 2d 45 3, 45 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ). He is a lso
corr e c t th a t c o r

r o b o r a ti n g e v id e n c e is in s u f f ic ie n t if it me r e ly p la c e s th e a c c u s e d a t th e s c e n e o f a crime. Malone , 253 S.W .3d 253, 257. But e ven if we assume that all the re levant witnesses w ere ind e e d a c c omp lic e s, Hi g g ins ’s te sti mony a bo ut t he A pri l 21 inc ide nt w a s st ill su ff ic ie ntl y
corr oborate d by

other e vidence
. I t is well establ i s h ed that “suff icient ac complice- witness corr oboration may be furnished by

the suspicious conduct of a defe ndant.” B r own v . Stat e , 27 0 S. W. 3 d 5 6 4 , 5 6 8 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2008). Suspicious conduc t ma y include “[t] he prese nce of the ac cused in the c ompany of t he accomplice near the time of the off ense.” Killou

gh v . S tate , 7 18 S.W. 2d

70 8, 71 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1986) (e n banc) . Her e, L eB lue was not me re l y prese nt at the sce ne whe n Hig g ins broke the l aw ; h e dr o v e H i g g i n s t o t h e s c e n e an d r e m a i n e d i n t h e c ar w i t hh e r , s p e a k i n g t o h e r

i n t e r m i t t e n t l y, while she attempted to pass the forg ed che ck. In addition, a ba nk employ ee te stified that L eB lue, driving the same c ar he was drivingon April 21, had at t em p t ed to pass a f org ed instrument at the bank’s dr ive-throug h on April 20 and ha d driven off befor e the transac tion wa s completed. Another bank employ ee te stified that on April 21, afte r she be g an stalling , L eB lue bec ame a g itated and state d that he wa s late fo r w or

k. Th e of fi c e r who arr ive d o n th e sc e ne and arr e ste d L eBlu e a shor

t ti me later te stified that L eB lue stated he was une mploy ed. The se fa cts far exceed the re q u i re m en t of

“ some no n- a c c omp lic e e vid e nc e that tends to c onne c t appe ll ant to the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e alleg ed in the indictment.” Br own , 2 70 S.W. 3d a t 56 8. Th a t is to s ay , th e se fa c ts c le arl y c on sti tut e
e v id e n c e o f

“ s u s p ic io u s c o nd

u c t” b y L e B lu e s u f

f ic ie n t t o c o r

r o b o r a te H ig g in s ’ s te s ti mo n y . We
overr ule L eB lue’s sec ond issue.We also note that the wit nesses did not testify about L eB lue’s involvement in the Apr il 21 6 inc ide nt; rathe r, the y

te sti fi e d a

bo ut h is i nv olv e me nt i n e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e s. 9 Third Iss ue: Whether the Trial Cou rt Erred by Failing to In struct th e Jury that Certain Wit nesses Were Acc om

plices Whose Testim ony Required Corroborat ion Finally , L eB lue ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed by failing to instruct t h e jury that
cer tain witnesses besides Hig g ins qua lified as acc omplices whose testimony had to be c orrobor ated. At the jury -cha

rg e conf ere nce, the parties a

nd the cour

t expl icitly

discussed whe ther such a n instruction was appropr iate. L eB lue ultimately neither r equeste d such an instruc tion nor objected wh e n the jur

y c ha rg e wa s su

bmi tte d wi tho ut on e . T hu s, the omi ssi on of the ins tr uc tio n is re ve rs ibl e
err or only if it was so eg reg ious l y h ar m ful that it deprived L eB lue of a fair tr ial. Se e Al

ma nz a , 686 S.W .2d at 171.

Even if we assume that the individuals in question were L eB lue’s ac complices a nd that om itt inga

c or ro bo ratio n in str

uc tio n w a s th e re fo re e rr or , th e omi ss io n w a s n ot e g re g iou sly harmful. As discusse d above, the jury hear d incriminating evidenc e fr om ma ny source s other than the wi tne sse s w ho may

have be e n a c c omp lic e s. F or e xamp le , th e jur

y he ard fr om H ig g ins (who se 6 te sti mony wa s, a s d is cus sed abo ve , c or ro bo rate d b y

e vid e nc e oth e r t

ha n th e te sti mony

of tho se witnesses); fr om bank employ ees a nd police off

icer s; and, perha

ps most im portantly , from L eB lue h imself, who admitted pre vious forg ery convictions, admitted involvement in the extraneous of fe ns e s d iscu sse d b y

the wi tne sse s, and

a dmi tte d d

ri vin g Hi g g ins to t

he ba nk on Ap ri l 21 . T he se fa c ts s ho w that th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure t o issu e a c or ro bo ra tio n in str uc tio n w a s n ot e g re g iou sly harmful. Se e id . ( de g re e of ha rm c a us e d b y jur y -c ha rg e omi ssi on

is a sse sse d in

lig ht o f o ve ra ll s tate of evide nce) . We overrule L eB lue’s third issue.10 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: June 24, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh