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

NO. 03-04-00618- CR

Ja so n Le va r G ibso n, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30325 74, H ONO RAB LE FRED A. MO ORE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found J ason L evar

Gibson g uilty

of ag g ravated robbe ry

and asse ssed sentenc e at forty -two y ear s in pr ison. Appellant conte nds that the trial cour t erre d by permitting the State’s
rac ially motivated strike of a

jury panelist, by

failing to excuse for c ause c erta in jurors and deny ing appellant’ s motion for additional pere mptory strikes, by

overr uling his objec tion to the admission of a sug g estive photo arr ay , by allowi n g hear say , and by allowing conviction on uncor roborated
a c c omp lic e wi tne ss t e sti mony . We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt. Victim Ma

rk Hespric h left the L anding Strip, a strip c lub, w ith an en t erta iner acqua intance, Mic helle West, and two unfamiliar men he ha d approa ched a bout a cquiringcoca ine. The four took two car s to H esprich’ s home. The f oursome consume d both coca ine and c hampag ne.2

Eventually , the two men robbe d Hespric h at g unpoint, shot him, a nd fled a fter H esprich e scape d and
so ug ht h e lp f

ro m ne ig hb or s. Pol ic e lif te d f ing e rp ri nts fr om a

bo ttl e and

a g la ss at H e sp ri c h’ s h ou se. Th e y a lso took bullets lodg ed in the house’s walls and obtained descr iptions of the a ssailants from He sprich and West. Hespric h descr ibed one suspect as a blac k male, appr ox imately 6' 3, 265 pounds, with a he a vy bu ild . H e de sc ri be d th e other as a bl a c k ma le , a pp ro xima te ly

6' 5, 21 0 p ound s, wi th a

thi n build, short black hair, a

nd a fe w g old teeth. Hespr ich testified that he r eca lled the he avier man
wea ring a re d jacke t. West described one of the attacker s as a blac k male, 25 to 30 y ear s old, heavy build, short Afro, g oatee , 6 foot, 230 pounds with a black a nd light blue jer sey . The sec ond suspect was de scribed a s 25 to 30 y ear s old, thin bui ld, short hair, 6 foot 2, 175 pounds with a red jerse y and g old te eth. Appellant’s attorney indicated at trial that appellant was 6' 4 and we i gh ed 2 4 0 o r 250 po un ds
. Employ ees at the L anding Strip wer e alerted to these descriptions. Seeing men who
rese mbled the desc ription of the assailants, the e m p l oy ees obta ined the license number of the suspect’s vehicle. Police arr ested the c ar’ s owner, H obert Robinson, who confe ssed and implicated appellant. B oth Hesprich a nd West picked Robinson out of a photo arra y wi t hout hesitation. He sp ri c h c ho se a

pp e lla nt o ut o f a se c on d arr ay wi tho ut he sit a tio n thre e da y s a ft e r t he inc ide nt. Wes t
narr owed the c hoice to appellant and a second man, but was unable to positively identify one as an
a ssa ila nt. A fing erpr int ex pert testified that she identified one fing erpr int from the champag ne bottle as belong ing to Robinson and three from the bottle be longing to a ppellant. The e x pert testified3

that, pursuant to policy , she did not list i n her r eport the points of c omparison that matche d betwee n the latent fing erpr ints and appel l an t’s fing erpr ints. S he wa s not asked and did not explain what sim ila ri tie s p e rs ua de d h e r t

hat th e late nt f

ing e rp ri nts we re a

pp e lla nt’ s f ing e rp ri nts
. Th e State c ha

rg e d a pp e lla nt w i t h t w o c o u nt s o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

that w e re a lte rn a te theories of

th e same off

ense. B oth involved robbery and exhibiti on of a f

irea rm, but count one inv olv e d s ho oti ngHe sp ri c h to e ff e c tuate the ro bb e ry

wh ile c ount t

wo re lie d o n p la c ingHe sp ri c h in fea r of imminent bodily

injury and death. The jury convicted a

ppellant of the f

irst count and later assessed se ntence at forty -two y ear s in prison.

Appellant ra ises five issues on appea l. He complains that the State improperly struck the on ly Af ri c an- Am e ri c an w ith in t

he “ str ike zon e ” and

tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d by de nyinghis mot ion fo r a dd iti on a l pe re mpt or y str ike s. Ap pe lla

nt a lso c ompl ain s th at the c ourt ov e rr ule d h is objection to the admission of a sug g estive photo arr ay , admitted hear say , and per mitted a conviction b a s e d o nu n c o r r o b o r a t e d a c c o mp l i c e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y. Th e State may

no t stri ke jur

y pa ne lis ts i n a

purpo se fu lly

and ina pp ro pr iate ly dis c ri min a tor

y mann e r. Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 5. 26 1 ( Wes t 19 89 ); Batson v. Kentuck y , 476 U.S. 79, 88-89 (1986) . The Batson c ha lle ng e ana ly sis ha s thr e e ste ps . F ir st, the de fe nd ant m us t make a prima fa cie showing of rele vant circ umstances that raise an infere nce that the State made a
rac e-b as ed strike ag ainst an elig ible panelist. Ma nd uja no v . S

tate , 9 6 6 S. W. 2 d

8 1 6 , 8 1 8 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref ’d). Ne x t, the State must c ome forwa rd with a ra ce- neutra l rea son for the str ike that is c le ar, re a so na bly sp e c if ic , a nd c on ta ins le g iti mate re a so ns fo r t he str ike re late d to the c as e b eing tried. Id . I f the State off ers a rac e-ne utral explanation, the burden r eturns to the4

defe ndant to persua de the tria l court that the State’s pur ported re asons for its per emptory strike ar e
mere prete x t. Id . Unless a discr iminatory intent is inherent in the prosec utor’s explanation, the
rea son offe red w ill be deemed r ace -neutra l. Purkett v. E lem , 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995). The focus of a pp e lla nt’ s is su e is w he the r t

he State ’s e xplanatio n o f i ts p e re mpt or y str ike is p re te xt. When defe nse counse l asked if a ny o f t h e panelists believed that rac e made a dif fe re nc e in a

tr ia l, t he c ha lle ng e d p ane lis t sa id, “ Ido .” He the n s tate d a s f oll ow s:
Ihave pr etty much grown up in East Aust in and so when I listen to people’s opinions about police of

fice rs, [ they are ] vastly differ ent t han mi ne. And I have be en pulled over be cause Ifitted so many descr iptions of various individuals for situations. And so from my

firsthand e x per i en ces, I ’ve le arne d that office rs don’t alwa y s tell the truth, from my

ex p er i ence. And so they are the ones that initially g et y ou eng ag ed in t he c ri min a l ju sti c e sy ste m and it’ s b a sed up on

the ir a bil iti e s to make de c isi on s. And once one g ets in there, I think other people—the ir beliefs pla y a role in how they pe rc e ive the ind ivi du a l th a t’ s o n tr ia l and wh a t de c isi on s to make a bo ut t he m.
The State e x erc ised one of its per emptory strikes on this panelist, w ho was number two in the jury
arr ay . He wa s the only

Afric an-A merica

n among the pane lists i n the strike zone—the subgroup of the full panel that includes all persons who w ould be struck pe remptorily and those c hosen to serve on the jury . (Two other

Afric an-A merica

n panelists wer e outside the strike zone.) After appellant objec ted that this strike was ra cially motivated, the assistant district
a tto rn e y sa id h e str

uc k th e pa

ne lis t
beca use he indicated that he had a differ ent view of police office rs havingg rown up on the ea st side. And what else d i d h e t el l us? He a lso—there a re some sor

t of persona l th in g s a

b o u t h im
. H e ar

r iv e d late a f

te r th e b r e a k
. H e w a s li k e 1 0 o r 15 minutes later than e very

body else. And he knows somebody or knewsomebody

that worke d at the L anding Strip.5

De fe ns e c ouns e l argued th at strik ingthe pa ne lis t be c a

us e he g re w u

p o n th e e a st s ide wa s “

jus t another way of say ing that we struck him bec ause he ’s black.” The a ssistant dist rict attorne y counter ed, “What he e x presse d to us was that he ha d a prope nsity to be more neg ative towar ds police office rs than other

jurors and that that was—and his w ords, I believe wer e—bec ause w here he g rew up and experienc es with police.”

Although r ace under l ay t he pane list’s response to def ense c ounsel’s question of whether rac e had a

n eff ect on tria ls, the prosecu t o r said he struc k the pane list for his neg ative
rea ction to police offic ers. The panelist plainly stated his be liefs about the attitudes and ac tions of p o l i ce office rs and other participa nts in the criminal justice sy stem. Appellant asse rts that the pa ne lis t di d n ot s ho w b ia s and c ha rg e s th a t on e c ou ld c on c lud e that “bl a c k mal e s are a uto matic a lly targ eted ve niremembe rs if they come f rom East Austin, that there should ne ver be any blacks fr om East Aust in beca

use of their ex perie nces, but espec ially no black males.
. . . I t was cle arly the State’s desire to imbue a

police off

icer with instant credibility

in the ey es of the j u ry an d h aving a blac k juror would thwar

t that objective!” Howeve r, t he record does not support these c ontentions. There is no showing that the State treated t his panelist diffe rently beca use of his ra ce—f

or example, there is no showing that the State declined to strike a panelist of another rac e with similar attitudes toward police and the criminal justice sy stem. Although the panelist’s st atements do not nece ssarily show bia s a g a ins t th e State , n o s uc h s ho wi ngis re qu ir e d for the e xer c ise of pe re mpt or y str ike
. Th e State offe red a permissible, rac e-ne utral explanation that was not re butted. This rec ord pre sents no err or. Se e Pu rk e tt , 514 U.S. at 768. We overrule point of err or one.Appellant cha rac terizes events diff

ere ntly in his brief. He contends that the cour t’s denial 1 of his c ha lle ng e s f

or c a us e of pa ne lis ts 3 and

14 fo rc e d h im to u se pe re mpt or y str ike s a g a ins t panelists 19 and 23. The recor d does not show that he challeng ed panelists 3 or 14 for cause (nor does he e x plai n why

a denia l of such cha lleng es would force him to ex erc ise pere mptory strikes a g a ins t oth e r panelists). Appellant did not preserve the er rors a s articulate d in his brief. See T e x. R. App. P. 33.1. 6

Ap pe ll ant com pl ain s t hat th e di st ri ct c ou rterro neo usly de nie d h is c ha lle ng e s f

or c a us e of cer tain jury panelists. These denials beca me harmful when the c ourt denied his re quest for thre e additional pere mptory

strikes. On appe al, he a sserts these de nials forc ed him t o ac cept two objectionable jur ors—pane lists 3 and 14. The court of cr iminal appeals ha s outlined the means of 1 showing harmful e rror

in the denial of c halleng es for cause :
Har m from the er

roneous de nial of a de fense challeng e for cause occur s (1) whe n a defe ndant ex erc ises a peremptory challeng e on a ve niremembe r whom the trial c ourt erro n eously

failed to e x cuse f

or ca use at the de fenda

nt’s reque st, (2) the de fenda nt uses all of his statutorily allotted pere mptory challeng es, and ( 3) the de fenda nt was de nie d a re qu e st f or an a dd iti on a l pe re mpt or

y c ha lle ng e wh ic h h e c la ims he wo uld use on another

venire member w hom the defe ndant identifies as “ objectionable” and who ac tually

sits on the jury
. Es c am illa v . S

tate , 143 S.W .3d 814, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Appellant cha lleng ed for

cause panelists 1, 8, 9, 13, 19, 23, 25, 26, 31, 38, 39, 40, 45, and 51. The court struc k panelists 8, 9, 13, 38, 45, and 51 for cause , and excused some pa nelists for other re asons. Panelists 39 and 40 wer e outside the st ri k e z o n e. Appellant then e x erc ised pe re mpt ory str ik e s o np an e l i s t s 1 , 6 , 1 5 , 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , an d 3 1
. H a v i n g e xh a

u s t e d h is pere mptory

strikes, appe llant reque sted three more. The co u rt denied the reque st. Appellant
c omp la ine d th a t he wa s fo rc e d to a c c e pt a s jur or s pa ne lis ts 3 and 14
. Ap pe lla nt state d that pa

ne lis t7

3 was objec tionable bec ause he had bee n a victim of a bur g lary and t h at he would have used a pere mptory

strike on pane list 14 for some unspecifie d rea son. Appellant has not de monstrated re versible e rror beca us e h e has not shown that the district court er

roneously failed to e x cuse pa

nelists for ca

use. S e e E s c am ill a , 1 43 S.W .3d at 821. I n h is b ri e f, a

pp e lla nt d oe s no t state wh y

any of the pa ne lis ts h e un su c c e ssf

ull y c ha lle ng e d f

or c a us e and on whom he use d pere mptory strikes should have be en struck f or ca use. Appe llant asserts that pa ne lis t 3’ s h ist or

y a s a burg lary vic timma de him

ob je c tio na ble , b ut a pp e lla nt did no t c ha lle ng e him for c ause at trial. At trial, when listing the panelists challeng ed for cause , ap p ellant stated that he
c ha lle ng e d th e lis t of pane lis ts f or “ [a] v ari e ty

of thi ng s. ” Whe n th e pa

ne lis ts c ha lle ng e d f

or c a us e returne d for que stioning, the c ourt asked whether they would assess the c redibility of a police offic er differ ently

from any other witness. Only

one pane list i ndicated that he would, and the court struc k him fo r c a us e . App e lla

nt’ s atto rn e y

sa id, “ Judg e , you

un de rs tand th at some of

the se oth e r p e op le Iha d o the r i ssu e s w ith , but I kn ow y ou too k note s. . . . I wi ll j us t art ic ulate the m. I ’d be ha pp y to question them further

if y ou want.” H e asked no further questions and made no more mention of the basis for a

ny challeng es for

cause . The c ourt then struck se vera l panelists for ca use and e x cused others, and denied appellant’ s reque st f or additional pere mptory strikes. Presented w ith no basis on which to e valuate these challeng es for cause , we find no err or in the ir denial. We overrule point of
err or two. Appellant cont en d s t hat the district cour t erre d by

denying his objec tion to the int ro du c tio n o f a

su g g e sti ve ph oto arr ay . H e c on te nd s th a t th e ph oto array was imp e rm iss ibl y
s u g g e s t i v e b e c a

u s e a p p e l l an tw a s t h e o n l y s u

b j e c t w e ar i n g an y j e w e l r

y, an d h i s n e c k l a c e w a s h e a v y,8

draw ing even more attention. He points to evidenc e that He sprich did not see him at the c lub or on the drive home , and that, once home, Hespr ich was intoxi cate d on champa g ne and c ocaine
.

When challeng ing the admissibili ty of pre trial identifications, a de fenda nt has the burden to show, by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e base d on the totality of the circ umstances, that the pretria l ide ntification proce dure was impermissibly sug g estive and that it c reated a su b s t an t ial likelihood of irrepa

rable misidentification. Ba rle yv . S tate , 906 S.W .2d 27, 32-34 (Te x . Crim. App. 1 9 9 5 ) ( ci t i n g Simmon s v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)). O nly if the pre trial identification proce dure pr oves impermissibly sug g estive do we examine whether it tainted the identification. Id
. at 3 4 (c i t i n g Ne il v . B igge rs , 409 U.S. 188 (1972)). F actor s in assessing any improper e ffe ct on the identification include: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal act, (2) t he witness’s de g ree of attention, (3) the ac cura cy o f t he suspec t’s descr iption, (4) the level of cer tainty at the time of confr ontation, and (5) the time betwee n the cr ime and conf rontation. Id . at 34-35. Austin Pol ice De tective Miche lle Woodfin testified that she pre pare d and pre sented the ar ray to be non-sug g estive of the ide ntity of the suspe ct
. S h e s aid t hat the other photogr aphs
wer e chosen by

c o mp u te r

b a s e d o nh e r in p u ts o f r a c e , g e n d e r , an d

a g e r an g e . Sh e te s ti f

ie d th at another office r alter ed the other

photos to equalize the siz e of the individual in the phot os. Both the orig inal photos a

nd the ar ray prese nted to Hespric h wer e admitted. Woodfin testified that the other
me mbe rs of the arr ay we re ma le s o f t he same ra c e wi th t

he same fa c ia l ha ir , f

a c ia l c ha ra c te ri sti c s, and hair color, all dresse d in civilian clothes aga inst a neutral backg round. S he testified that other s had some distinct shirts—one red, one wit h a l ar ge whi te emblem, one w ith the letters “AWAY”
acr oss it—and disag ree d that t h e n ecklace ma de appe llant stand out. She testified that, when9

showing the arr ay to H esprich, she told him that she did not know if the suspect was included. She also testified that no other of fice r sug g ested whic h photo to choose. Hespric h ag ree d that the photos were prese nted t o h i m i n a neutr al manner . He disag ree d that appel l an t ’s phot o was sug g estive. He testified that he did not notice a ppellant’s
ne c kla c e un til de fe ns e c ouns e l po int e d it ou t. ( Th e c ha in i s tu c ke d in to a pp e lla nt’ s t- sh ir t and

is visible only

on the sides of his nec k.) He sprich testi fied that he chose appellant ba sed on his fac e. Hespric h testified that he ha d the opportunity to observe the men while they wer e in his kitchen, and pa rt ic ula rl y wh e n a pp e lla nt t hr e a te ne d h im w itha

g un . H e e sp e c ia lly

re me mbe re d a

pp e lla nt’ s e y e s. He sp ri c h s a id h e re a dil y

ide nti fi e d a

pp e lla nt f ro m th e ph oto arr ay

thr e e da y s a ft e r h e wa s sh ot. After revie wing the testimony

and the photo arr ay , we conclude that appellant ha s not shown err or. The ne cklac e is not sug g estive. I t is tucked awa y , has at most a fr aming eff ect similar to two other subjects’ unde rshirts pro t ru d i n g from swe atshirts, and wa s not a fac tor in the identification, ac cording to H esprich. There was no other evidenc e that the arr ay or its presentation
was su gges t i ve. Ne verthe less, we have examined the Bi gge rs fac tors and find that He sprich’s ob se rv a tio n o f h is a ssa ila nt— pa rt icul arl y wh e n h e ld at g un

po int —a nd his qu ic k a

nd c e rt a in identification of a

ppellant three d ay s af

t er t he robbe ry

provide c onfidenc e in the integ rity of the identification. Appe llant makes much of dispa rities betwee n appellant’ s descr iption and his actual heig ht and weig ht. We conclude that a differ ence of one inc h (a p p el l an t d es cribed as 6' 4 and appellant’ s attorney

asser ted he wa s 6' 3) and f

ifteen to twe nty -five pounds ( appellant described a s 265 and appe llant’s attorney asser ted he wa s 240 or 250 pounds) is not a disparity that shows any10

imp ro pe r s ug g e sti ve ness in t he ph oto arr ay

c a us e d a su bs tanti a l li ke lih oo d o f i rr e pa ra ble misidentification. We overrule point of e rror three
. Appellant complains of t h e int roduction of testimony that implied that Robi nson made a n out-of-c ourt statement implic at i n g appellant. Appellant also complains of De tective Woo d f in ’ s te s ti mo n y

th a t, a f te r Ro b in s o nw a s ar

r e s te d an d in te r r o g a te d , p o li c e th e nar

r e sted appellant. Althoug h appellant did not object at tr ial, he conte nds that the admission of testimony imply ing a

n out-of-c ourt statement by Robinson presents fundame ntal err or. He argues that it denied him his c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o c on fr on t Ro bin so n a s a wi tne ss a g a ins t hi m. Appellant wa ived his hear say and conf rontation clause conce rns by failing to object to the evidenc e at tria l. Se e W rig ht v . S tate , 2 8 S. W.3 d 5 26 , 5 36 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); se e als o Moo re v . S

tate , 9 3 5 S. W. 2 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 0 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 6 )
. A p p e ll an t’ s a tt e mp t to couch the
asser ted violation in terms of a Cra wfo rd -sty le confrontation clause issue does not relieve him from the obl igation to object at trial. Bu nto n v . S tate , 136 S.W .3d 355, 368-69 (Te x . App.—Austin 2004, pet. re f’d) (objec tion to hearsay nece ssary to preser ve er ror unde r Crawf

ord v. W ashington , 5 41 U. S. 36 (2 00 4) ); se e als o O v e al v . S tate , 164 S.W .3d 735, 739 n . 2 (T ex . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 200 5 , p et. ref’d); Cou rso n v . S tate , 160 S.W .3d 125, 129 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2005, no pet.). I n the case appellant cites for the exclusion of indirect or ba ckdoor he arsa y , the def endant made a hear say objection. See Sc ha

ffe r v . S tate , 777 S.W .2d 111, 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). The c ourt descr ibes the er

ror in admitting indire ct hea rsay over obje ction as affec ting “substantial” rig hts and meriting reve rsal, but not as “fundamental” err or allowingreve rsal without objection at trial. See id . at 115. B eca

use there was a

n objection at trial, the Schaffer court did not have to d eter mine11

whethe r t h e ad m ission of this evidence wa s fundamenta l error . Whil e Bl uev . S tate descr ibes fundame ntal err or in a trial judge ’s comments about his de sire for a defe ndant to plead guilty , that
case does not hold that admission of indirect hea rsay wi t hout objection constitutes fundamenta l
err or. See 41 S.W. 3d

12 9, 13 0- 32 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). I f t he a dmi ssi on

of c la ssi c he ars ay

in violation of the confr ontation clause w ithout objection does not constitute fu n d amental e rror , see W right , 28 S.W .3d at 536, we a re not pe rsuade d that admission of i ndirec t hear say without objection constitutes fundamenta l error
.

Even if the c ourt had e rrone ously admitted the evidenc e over o b je c ti o n , th e admission did not affe ct a substantial rig ht of appe llant. Such an er ror must have a substantial and injurious eff ect or influence in determining the j ury ’s ver dict. Fo rd v . S tate , 7 3 S. W.3 d 9 23 , 9 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). A su

bs tanti a l ri g ht i s n ot a ff

e c te d if , a ft e r e xami nin g the re c or d a s a wh ole , w e have fa ir
assur ance that the er

ror did not influenc e the jury , or had but a slight ef fec t. Id . Hespric h’s
un e qu ivo c a l out- of

-c ourt ide nti fi c a tio n, his in- c ourt ide nti fi c a tio n o f a

pp e lla nt, and his op po rt

un ity to observe de fenda

nt before the robbery

assure us that an oblique indication that Robinson’s statements led police to inc lude appe llant’s photo in an arr ay submitt ed to Hespr ich did not have a substantial and injurious effe ct in deter mining the jury ’s ver dict. We overrule point of err or four
. Appellant contends that a convic tion cannot be ha d upon uncorr oborate d acc omplice testimony . “A c onviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an a ccomplice unless corr oborate d by other e vidence tending to connec t the def en d an t wi t h the offe nse committed; and the
c or ro bo ratio n is not suf

fi c ie nt if it mer e ly sh ow s the c omm iss ion of the of fe ns e .” Te x. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. a

rt. 38.14 (West 2005).12 A cr itical flaw in this argument is that Robins on, appellant’ s acc omplice, d id not testify at trial. Onl y i n -c o u rt acc omplice testimony is subject to the article 38.14 require ment of
corr oboration. Bi ngha m v . S tate , 913 S.W .2d 208, 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (op. on re h’g ); Ma y na rd v . S tate , 166 S.W .3d 403, 410 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref ’d). Even if the indirect hear say testimony descr ibed above wer e somehow to trigg er the
acc omplice testimony

rule, appellant has not show n err or. To weig h the suffic iency of cor roborative evidenc e, we eliminate from considera tion the acc omplice witness testimony and then e x amine the
rema ining testimony

and evide nce to a scer

tain if there is evi d en ce wh i ch tends to conne ct the
acc used with the commission of the offe nse. He rn an de z v . S tate , 9 39 S.W. 2d

17 3, 17 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). No n- a c c omp lic e e vid e nc e ne e d n ot be str on g e no ug h to e sta bli shthe de fe nd ant’ s guil t bey ond a rea sonable doubt, nor must it direc tly link the defe ndant to the commission of the offe nse. Id . Hespric h’s identification of appellant and testimony that appellant held a g un to Hesprich’ s head and for ced him to re linquish hi s watch, wallet, and c ell phone tend to conne ct appe llant to the commission of the ag g ravated robbe ry . We overrule point of err or five.

We o ve rr ule a ll o f a

pp e lla nt’ s p oin ts o f e rr or

and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

18, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh