### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00418-CR

Rober t Wincott, Appel

lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLIAMSON COUNT Y, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 00-135-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDG E PRESIDING

Robe rt W i n cott was i n di cte d on th re e c oun ts o f en gagi n g i n org an ize d c ri m i n al ac ti v i ty based on three al

l eged acts of aggra va ted robb ery . SeeTex. Pen. Code An n. § 71.02 (West Supp. 200 1) . Winco t t plead ed no t guilt y to all charg es. The jury fou nd W i n cott g ui l ty on two c oun

ts of aggravated robbery

and one count of organi

zed cri mi nal activ ity, and asses sed punishm ent at three
co ncur re nt prison

term s of ni ne ty-ni ne yea rs each . Both

pa rti esagree

tha t W i nc ott’s con vi cti on turne d on accom

pli ce testim

ony . W i nc ott chal l en ge s th e adm i ss i on of testim ony of a poli ce off ic er who alle gedl

y testi fi ed as a “ Truth Expert” in support of the acco m pli ce . W i thor wit hou t t he officer’s testim

ony, W in cott argues that the evidence was leg ally in suf fi ci ent to sat is fy

article 38.14 of the Texa s Code

of Cri m i na l Procedu re. See Tex. Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.14(We st 1979 ). Because we

h ol d th at th e acc om pl i ce testi mon y wa s i n suf f i ci en tl y cor rob ora te d, we rever se a nd
r en de rjud gme nt o f ac qu it t al.1 Jon esalso i m pl i ca ted W i nc ott i n two robbe

ri esof con ve ni en cestore s, f

orwhi ch W i n cott was not char ged . Ac co rd ing t o J one s, Winco t t was t he gun m an i nth e robbery

of a Texaco gas 2 FACTS Fr om March to Decemb er of 1998, fi ve si mi la r robberie s were com

m i tte d nea r t he A nd ers on Mill a r ea o f Willia mso n C o un t y. Each robbery target ed a take-out piz

za restaurant; each in volv ed a lone gunman w ear ing a sk i mask and clothes th at conc eal ed h i s sk i n c olor. T he po lice did not have a sus pec t unt il Sacco ne’s P izza w as r obbe d o n Dec ember 1 , 1 998 . I n t his i nc i den t, a customer who se w allet w as t ake n chas ed a fte r t he gunm an’s getaway vehicle. The gunman s hot t he
cus tomer . Fo llowing t his s ho o t ing , t he Au st in Police Departmen

t receive d a Cri

me Sto pper’s tip that Bra d Jo nes w as a t t empt ing t o e sca pe t ow n via bus. Jo nes w as a ppr ehend ed a t t he bus st at ion.

On Dece m ber 2, J o ne s a dmi tt ed to t he Saccone’ s robbery but in itially deni ed involvement in the o t her cr imes. Ove r t he co ur se o f this first inter ro gat ion and a su bseq uent in terview on Decem ber 4, Jones’ s versi

on of even

ts changed. He ac cepted partial res pon si bi l i ty f or all five of t he pizz a st or e r obbe ries, and h e i m pl i ca ted W i n cott, Aaro n Jo hnso n, S had William s, a nd Gary Oli vi er. Jon es th en en tered i n to a pl ea b argai n wi th the State. A cc ordi

n g to th i s a rra n gemen t, Jones pleade d gu

i l ty to threecou

nts of aggravated robbery . He was sent ence d t o life impriso nment on the f i rst coun t, but the courtag re ed to defer as sessm

ent of punishm

ent on the rema

in in g crim es un t il af t er Win cott ’s trial . The State agreed t o recommen d that Jones’s sen

tences be served
co nc ur r en t ly if Jo ne s t es t ified t rut hfu lly ag ain st his c o de fen da nt s a t t r ial.

Jones wa s th

e S tate ’s l ead w i tn es s a t W i n cott’ s tr i al . Acc ordi

n g to J on es , W i n cott partici pated in three robberi es i

n 1998: Papa Jo hn’sPizz a on March 29, Pi zza Hut Pizza on A

pril 26, and Dano’s Pi

zza on May

9. 1 Jo nes t est ifi

ed t hat he and Winco t t planned t he r obbe ries a fte r w at chingst at ion, whi le Jones wai ted in W in cott ’s truck. The oth

er rob b er y al l eg ed l y i n v ol v ed Jon es , W i n cott, and Johnso n, in whi

ch the t hree used Johnso n’s car and Jon es rob b ed an A AMC O g as

sta ti on wi th a gun . 2 Jones testifi

ed that he borrowed t he gun from Johnson b

ut did not tell

hi m that he pla nne d to use i t to comm

i t a robb ery ; a

t some poi

nt, howev er, Jo hns o n be ca me int er es t ed in p ar t icip at ing in t he rob b eri es an d al l eg ed l y pa rti ci pa ted wi th Jon es . A n i n v esti ga tor w i th th e W i l l i am son Cou n ty Sheriff ’s De pa r t men t t es t ified at t r ial t ha t Jo hns o n la t er ad mit t ed t ha t he kn ew t ha t his gun ha d been used i n som e of the robberi

es . Jo hns o n d id n o t t es t ify at Winc o t t ’s t r ial.

3 t he movi e “Pul p Fiction” n

ume rous times . He sai d t hey fi rst intende d to rob a sm

all c onven

ie nce store by the h ouse w here Jone s res i ded wi

th h i s au nt. They f oun d a sk i mask b el ongi n g to th e a un t, and borrowed a semi -a ut omat ic handg un wit h a laser sight fro m Johns on. 2 According to Jo nes, W i n cott drove them to the conven ie nce store, but t hei

r in tended robbery was f

oiled when

they encountered a poli

ce car parked outside. The Robberies Papa John’s Jones t es t ified t ha t o n t he wa y bac k t o his r es id enc e he an d Wi ncott passed a Papa John’s piz za store, which

they deci ded to rob. Weari

ng the ski ma sk and carry

in g the han dgun, Jones robbed t he store at gunpoin

t whil e Wi ncott st ay ed i n the truck. When

Jones cam

e out, he di

d not see Wi ncot t’s truck; thin

kin g that Wi ncott had pani cked, Jone s ran hom e. Therehe sai

d he en countered Wi nc ott and the

y spl i t the stolen

money. The St at e pr ese nt ed t he t est imony of t he t hre e emplo yees who wer e pr ese nt t hat night at Pap a Jo hn’s. All thre e t est ifi ed t hat a gu nman with blo nd hai r sticki ng out from un

derneath a b lue ski mask e nt er ed t he store short ly bef ore t hey cl osed. The gunman d emande d all of t he money in t he Papa John’ s saf

e; the l ock had been

in adve rt ent ly deact ivate d whe n an emplo yee t ur ned o ff the3 The St at e as ser t s t hat t he de scr ipt ion o f the robber’s h ei ght was cl oser to Wi

ncott’s than Jones’s hei

ght. Jones testif

ie d that his

hei ght was between

5'10" an d 5'11" and that

he wa s five t o six in ches taller than W

in cott . Str ot her testif

ie d that she did not know Wi ncott’s hei ght, but t hou ght he was 5'8" or 5'9" . D et ect ive Mike Willi ams o f the Austi

n Poli ce Departmen

t t estif ie d that Jones was “p r o ba bly cl ose to 6 f oot, 5' 10 ", 5' 11 ", so mew he r e in t he r e, pr o ba bly 160 pounds.” He testif

ie d that W i n cott wa s “5 '8 ", 5' 9" so mew he r e in t he r e, ” a nd sa id t ha t he t ho ug ht he co uld po ss ibly be as s hort as 5'5.5" or 5'6". 4 el ec tri ci ty i n th e s tore. Th e rob

be r poi nte d a gun wi th a l as er s i gh t di rectl y at the f oreh ead of Ja son St een, the ma

nager i n ch arge. The em

ploy ees t ur ne d o ve rall the cash a nd ch ecks and were in

structed to li e on the fl oor . None of the em

ploy ees saw a getaway

veh ic le
. Piz za Hut The second count of Wi ncott’s indi

ctmen t alleged that he had be en t he gu nman in the robb ery o f a Pizz a Hut. Jones testifi ed that he and W

in cott pla nne d the robbery, tryin

g to fi nd a getaway ro ut e t hey co uld t ake on fo ot , be cau se Wi n cottdid n ot want to use his

truck. T wo em ploy ees testifi ed that a lone gun

ma n weari ng a ski ma sk robbed the store around 10:00 or 10: 30 p. m. Both

Pizza Hut employee s t est ifi ed t hat t he per pet ra t or use d a p ar t ially silver gu n. I n add itio n, one est imated t hat t he gunm an was b etween 5'8" an

d 6 ' 0" an d “l ooke d l

i ke h e h ad b een wor ki n g ou t. He wasn’ t al l

ski n a nd b ones . . . so he had s ome b

uil d to hi m.” The em

ploy ee estim ated the gunm

an wei ghed approxim

ately one-hundred

and e igh

ty pounds. 3 Jo nes t est ifi ed t hat Wincot t was t he gunm an in t his ro bber y and

that after Wi

ncott r obbed the Pi

zza Hut, he ran b ack to Jo nes’ s residence.
Dan o’ s Pi zza The t hird c ou nt of t he indict ment a lleged t hat Wincot t dr ove Jones to Dano’s Pi zza, wh ereJones com

mi tt ed an aggrav

ated robbery . The State call ed Darren Sm alle y, a pi zza m aker at5

t he ti me, a nd Da ni el Pac i occ o, th e ow

ne r of the est ab l i sh

men t; b oth testif

i ed th at sh

ortly be f ore cl osin g, a ma n carry in g a bl ack and si lv er gun entered the restaurant deman din g mone y. The gunm an tol d Sm al l ey to l i e on th e f l oor a n d r em ai n th ere, an d th en i n str uc ted Pa ci occ o to take the money

out of the regis ter. Paciocco removed

t he ent ire r egist er t ill, bu t t he gu nman demand ed t hat he place t he
mone y int o a s mall p las t ic b ag . T he gu nma n t he n t o ld b o t h me n t o lie do wn. Afte r r emaining on t he f l oorbr iefly, Pa cio cc o t o ld Smal ley to call 911; Paciocco r an out side to see t he perpetr ato r cro ss a priv acy fen ce at the end of the parki

ng l ot . Paciocco test if

ied that he heard a car do or close bu t co uld
no t se e t he ve hic le a s it dr o ve aw ay.

Jones testifi

ed that he and Winc o t t de cid ed t ha t t he Da no ’s r o bbe ry wo uld be t he ir l ast. He added that the robberie s were no longe r just a “ gam

e” becaus e they

were usi ng the proceeds to pay off their debts to drug dealers. Jones adm

itted that he la

ter ro bbe d

two o ther

est ablishments wit hou t Wincot t using
a di f f eren t gun. One

robb ery i nv olv ed W i l l i ams, wh

o drove J ones to a Mr. Gatti’s pi

zza store, wh ere Jones used a st olen revolver. Fin all y, Jones co nfi

rmed that he ro bbed the Sa cco ne’s piz za st o r e w hile usi ng th e stolen revolv er; thi s ti me Ol i vi er wa s h i s dri ver. DISCUSSI ON Expe rt Te stimony The Stat e’s fi

nal witnesswas Det ect iveMi ch ae l H. W i l l i am s. D ete cti ve W i l l i am s of t he Austi n Poli ce Departmen

t’s robbery

div is ion was assi

gned t o fo llo w u p o n t he S ac co ne ’s r o bbe ry. Williams prov

i de d ge ne ral tes ti mony reg ard i ng hi s i nte rvi ew of Jones af ter his arrest, and about how
su sp ec ts l i ke Jon es n ev er tel l th e tr uth at fi rst, but i f you ch i p a wa y at th em , y ou g et “ th e c om pl ete6

story out, th e c om

pl ete tru th .”The S tate

aske d W i l l i am s “ wh eth er Brad Jo nes was one of those pe o ple who started o ut bein g not comple

tely trut h f ul or n ot t ruthful

at all .” He said ye s and then descri bed how he got Jones t o t ell the t ru t h: “I t hink as B ra d bec ame mor e famili ar wit h myself

and Det ect iveStaha we started developi ng a rapport and basi

cally that he needed to tell

us the truth
. He
was an adul

t. He was responsi

ble for what he di

d. And this trut h eventually over so me sev eral hours started c omi

ng out.” W i n cott complai ns that t he trial court essentiall y perm itted Wil li ams to t estify

as a

“ Tru th Ex pe rt” i n v i ol ati on of the rul esof ev i de nc e, w hi ch do n ot pe rm i t an ex pe rt to gi ve an opi ni on unl ess it would as si st the trier of f act. An ex

pert witness m

ay not t estif y di rectly that a particula

r witnessis trut hf ul
. Yount v. State , 8 72 S .W. 2d 7 06, 712 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 3) . P er mitt ingsuch t est imony usu rp s t he r ole o f the jury in det er mini ng t he cred

i b i l i ty of wi tn es se s, argu es

W i n cott. By t est ify ingab out how a

n i nv es ti ga tor“ gets th

e tr uth out” of a s us pe ct, th e dete cti

v e w as perm i tted to bo ls ter the test im

ony of the St ate ’s star witness, aft er Jo nes had been discredited, to Wi ncot t’s detri men t. On ap pe al, Winc o t t ar gu es t ha t Wil l iams ’s t es t imo ny w as impr o pe r ly ad mit t ed in vi ol ati on o f rule 40 3, wh ich ex clu de s r ele vant inf o rmat io n if it s p r o ba t ive va lue is s ub st an t ially out wei ghed

by the dang er of u nfair pr ejudice , c onfu sion o f the issues , o r misleading t he jur y, a nd rule 702. SeeTe x . R . Ev

i d. 4 03 , 70 2. Th e S tate

poi n ts out that t hi s compl

ai nt has n ot been preserved because it wa s no t t he o bje ct io n t ha t wa s r ais ed at t r ial in r es po nse t o Williams ’s t es t imo ny. Ru le 33.1 of the Rul

es of Appel l ate Proce dure re qui

res a spe ci f i c ti mel y obj ection at trial

to preserv

e error. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. When the Stat e fi

rst asked Wi

ll ia ms to descri be wh at he does i

n an in terview4 Because Jones was i ndicted for the sam

e off ense as Wi ncott , Jones is an accompl ice as a ma tt er of l aw. See Villarreal

v. State , 5 76 S .W. 2d 5 1, 56 ( Te x. C rim. App . 1 978 ) ( st at ingthat “ [a]n accompl ic e witne ss i s someone

who has parti ci

pated wit h ano t her befo re , d ur ing, o r a fte r t he 7 wi th a suspect “to get t hem

to be h onest,” Wi

ncott o bj ectedt hat t he t est imony was no t re levant . T he courtov er

ru l ed th e ob j ec ti on . Th

e dete cti v e c on ti n ue d to testify

about how he knows whe

n a sus pect is “tryi ng to be trut hf

ul wi th you.” Wi

ncott r ai sed a

hear say o bject ion, which t he court overruled. The de tectiv e conti nued : We get li ttl e b i ts o f tru th i n th e b eg i n n i n g. S om eti me s we do n’t get any in the begi nni ng, bu t so met imes we will get li ttl e b i ts of truth. That’s where our job com es in as i nve stigators to start chippi ng away an d g et t in g t he co mplet e st or y out , t he co mplet e t ru t h. W i n cott rai se d a ru n n i n g h ea rs ay ob j ec ti on wh en th e S tate asked Wi ll ia ms if Jones was one of t hese peo ple “who st ar t ed o ut being not com pl etel y truthf ul or not truthf

ul at al l .” Again t he obj ec ti on was overrul ed , an d a

pp el l an t wa s p er m i tted to m ake a ru n n i ng h ea rs ay ob j ec ti on to Wil li ams’s tes t imony of wha t Jo nes sa id du ring t he inte rview and ho w he c har act er ized t he tru thful nessof Jones’ s testim

ony. A lthough we share W

i nc ott’s concerns ab out the b ols teri ng n ature of the detective’ s testim

ony, we ho ld t hat t he er ro r r aised on a ppe al was not pr op er ly prese rve d. We
o ve rrule this p oi nt of

err or , an

d tur n to W i nc ott’s com pl ai nt th at Jone s’ s te sti

mony wa s n ot suf fi ci ently corro borated. Corr

obora tion of Ac compl

ice Te stimony W i n cott argu es th at th e S tate f ai l ed to m eet i ts bu rde n u nd er a rticl e 3 8.1 4 of the Texas Code of Cri

m i na l Procedu re , wh ich man da t es co rr o bo r at io n o f a cc o mp lice t es t imo ny. 4 SeeTe x.com

m i ss i on o f a cr ime. . . . [ o] ne is no t an ac co mplice witne ss who canno t be pr os ecu t ed fo r t he offense wi

th which the a ccus ed is char ged” ) ( citat ions o mi tt ed) ; Nolley v

. State , 5 S.W.3d 850, 853 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 1999 , no pet.).
5 The rule for corro boration of accom pli ce testim ony h as rem ai ned un chan ged si ncet he fi rst TexasCode of

Cri m i na l Procedu re. Walke r v. State , 615 S.W.2d728 , 7 31 ( Te x. Cri m . App. 1981 ). 8 Code Crim

. Proc. Ann. art . 38 .14 ; Nolley v . State , 5 S .W .3d

85 0, 8 52 -5 3 ( Te x . A

pp .—H ouston

[1 4th Di st.] 19 99 , no pet.). W e c on si der th i s a ss er ti on as a ch al l en ge to the le gal

suf fi ci ency of the evi dence to su stai n th e c on v i cti on. Nolley , 5 S.W.3d at 852. T he rule governi ng the use of

accompl ic e t est imony st at es: “A

con v i ction cannot be had upo n the test im ony of an

accompli

ce unles s corro borated by ot her evidenc e t ending t o c onne ct t he de fendant wit h t he o ffense co mmi t t ed; a nd t he
corr obor ati on is not sufficient if it mer ely s ho ws t he co mmiss io n o f t he o ffen se . ” T ex . Co de Cr im. Pro c. A n n . a rt. 38.14. Wi

ncott ar gues thatJo nes’s t est imony was not sufficient ly cor ro bor at ed by evidence tending to co nnect Wi ncott with the robberies. The St at e ar gue s t hat Wincot t sup plied t he evide nce t hat t ende d t o c onne ct him to t he
ro bber ies t hro ugh his o wn ad missions, par t icular ly the o nes he made t o his g irlfriendat the ti me of his arrest. It al so contends that Wi ncott lin ked hi ms el f to the gun whi

ch, ac cording t o Jo nes’s t es t imo ny, Jone s an

d Wi nc ott used i

n the thre e robb eries. F inal ly, whi le it ac kno wledg es t hat t he indepe ndent evidenc e alo ne ma y not have be en su ffi

cient t o c onvict Wincot t of t he r obbe ries, t he State m ai ntai ns that i t was s uf f i cien t to corroborate Jones’ s testi mony . We begi n by voic in g the strong polic

y c oncerns that wei

gh ag ain st r elia nc e on accompl ic e t es t imo ny. 5 The ru le reflec t s a leg islative d et er mina ti on th at acc omp lice te st imony impli cat ingano t her per so n sho uld be view ed w ith a measu re of c aut ion, because accompl ic es often have inc en t ive s t o lie, su ch as t o av o id pun i sh m en t or sh i f t blam e to another person. Nolley , 59

S. W.3dat 852-53 (citi

ng Blake v. Stat

e , 9 71 S .W. 2d 4 51, 454 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 8) ). The
acco mpl ice’smot ives in te st ify

ing aga inst t he accuse d m

ay wel l i nc l ude m al i ce or an attem pt to curry favo r fr o m t he s t at e in t he fo rm o f a l es se r p un i sh men t, or p er h ap s, n o pu

n i sh men t. Id . The Texas le gis la ture has determi

ned that becaus e the testim ony of an ac co mplic e is inhe r en t ly

unt ru st wo rt hy and sho uld be view ed w ith ca ut ion, unco rr obo ra t ed t est imony of an a cco mplice, st anding alo ne , is not en ough to su

pport a cri

m i na l conv i cti on. Id
. Th e c ourt of

crim in al appeal s has

descri bed an accom

pli ce as a discredited witness
. Walker v. State , 615 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Tex. Crim . App. 1981). No matter how co mpl ete a case m

ay be estab l i sh

ed b y an ac com pl i ce wi tn es s, a c on

v i cti on i s n ot pe rm i tt ed unl es s the acco mpl

ice’s t est imony i s corrob orated. Id
. The t est imony of an a cco mplice witne ss is unt ru st wo rt hy and sho uld be re ceived and actedon wi th ca uti on. Id . I t sho uld be c ar efully scrut inized no t only beca use of t he pote n ti al self i nterest of the accompl

ic e, but because s

uch testim

ony i s evi dence f rom a corrupt source . Id
. Thes e considerations, whi ch f orm the bas is

for the requi

remen t t hat acco mplic e t est imony be su ffi cient ly cor ro bor at ed, also inform t he sk ep ti cism wi th wh i ch cou rtsview evi

dence that tends to co nne ct the accused onl y w ith the accomplice , rathe

r th an wi ththe charged off

ense. “The mere p re senc e o f the acc use d in t he com pa ny of t he ac co mplice . . . sho rt ly before or aft er t he t ime of the of

f en se is n ot, ini tself , suf f i cien t corroboration of

the testim

ony of th e ac com pli ce.” Nelson v. State , 5 42 S .W. 2d 17 5, 177 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 197 6) . C ou rt s have re ject ed g uilt by
as soc i ati on as c orr ob orati ng evide nce be cau se if “such t est imony [plac ing t he de fendant and t he
ac co mplic e t o ge t he r ] be co rr o bo r at ive , t he n a cc o mplic es migh t be he ld c o rr o bo r at ed in t he ir c laim10

of the guil t o f an y pe rson upon whom

they mi ght seek to fasten a cri

me , by me re proo f that such parties h ad been seen together.” Weathe

rred v. State , 272 S.W . 471, 47 2 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1925 ). A ss oci ati on wit h t he ad mitt ed c riminal m ay be co rr o bo r at ive , ho we ve r , if of f ered i n con j un cti on wi th ot her facts an d ci rcumstances that suff

ic ie ntly connect the ac cu se d w i

th th e c om m i ss i on of the crim e. Cherb v. St ate , 47 2 S .W. 2d 2 73, 280 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 197 1) . E xamples o f such c or ro bor at ing ci rcumstances i

n cl ude s ub se qu en t f l i gh t, p oss es si

on of th e f ru i ts of the cri

me , and presen

ce ator near th e sce ne of the cri me at an unr eas onab l e hour. Id .; Caw ley v. State , 310 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex
. Cri m . App. 1957 ).

In evalua t ing t he su ffi

ciency o f the evi

dence to corro borate accomplic e testim ony, we consider each case on its own facts and ci rcumstances, and loo k t o a ll f act s in seek ing co rr obo ra t ion. Nolley , 5 S.W.3d

at 853. Th

e corrob orati

ve evi den ce m ay be ci rcum stan tia l or di rect. Reed

v. State , 744 S.W.2d 112, 12 6 ( T ex . Cr im . App. 1988 ). On appe al , we de

term i ne wh ethe r the j ury he ard proof of mat er ial facts t ending t o c onne ct t he ac cus ed w ith t he comm is si on of the off

ense. Edwar

ds
v. State , 4 27 S .W. 2d 6 29, 632 -3 3 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p. 196 8) . We first elimi nat e fro m cons ider at ion t he evi dence of the accom

pli ce wi tnes s. Id . at 632. We then ex am i n e th e oth er i n cul pa tory ev i den ce to as ce rt ain wh

eth er i t ten dsto co n n ec t th e def

en da n t wi th the of f en se. Id .; see

also Bur ks v. Stat e , 876 S.W.2d 87 7, 88 7 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 94 )
. While it is t ru e t hat t he no n-a cco mplice evidenc e may be ci rcumstantial

ra th er th an di re ct, i t sti l l m us t ten d to conn ect the accuse d to the of

f en se. See Burks , 876 S.W .2d

at 8 88 . If th e S tate fails to pr od uce any non- acc omp lice evidenc e t ending t o c onne ct t he defend ant t o t he o ffense, t hen t he de fendant i s en titl ed to an acqu i ttal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art . 38 .14 ; Taylor v

. State , 10 S.W.3d 673, 685 ( Tex. Cr im. App. 2000) . Set ting aside Jones’s11

t es t imo ny, we w ill

examine t he non-accom

pli ce i ncul pator y e vi dence, wh i ch th e S tate urge s te n dsto connect Win

cot t t o t he comm

issi on of the t hree robberies. The Sta te prof f er s twel v e f ac t sc en ari os, wh i ch i t ar gu es ten d to c on n ec t W i n cott t o t he ro bber ies. T he St at e maint ains t hat t his evidenc e pr ovid es c omp elling evidence , d irect and ci rcum sta nt ial, o f Win co t t ’s gu ilt
. T he S t at e e ss en t iall y ar gu es t ha t Winc o t t r ela t ed fa ct s o nly a par t icipant in the r obbe r ies wo uld kno w, made c er t ain admissio ns, a nd t hen made “tr ansp ar ent atte m pts t o qu alify thos e adm

i ss i ons ” there

by ex pre ss i ng gui l t f orh i s p ar ti ci pa ti on . F i n al l y , the S tate argues t hat t hese fact s alo ne nee d no t be sufficient t o co nvi ct t o co rr o bo r at e a cc o mp lice t es t imo ny. The St at e r elies o n Casias v. State , 36 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App.—Austi n 2001, no pet.), t o argue that t he corro borating ev

i dence i n that case was “

nowhere n

ear specifi

c enough to iden

tif y a particular offense or vi cti

m ,” y et th i s C ourt h el d the evi de nc e w as“ su f

f i ci en t to tend to connect

appe l l an t wi th t he murder.” Id . at 902. T he State posits that t he ev ide nce as a whole shows W

in co tt’ s consciousnessof g

uil t. See Tor

res v . State , 794 S. W.2 d 59 6, 598 -9 9 ( Te x. App. —Aus t in 199 0, no pet.). Facts Only a Par

ticipant Would Know The St at e first co nt end s that Wincot t re vealed “significant fac t s re gar ding t he robberi es t ha t like ly co uld have been known b y onl y a partici pant.” In particul

ar, the Stat e cl ai

ms that W i n cott li n ke d h i m se l f to the gun used in the three ro bberies. T he St at e r ep ea t ed ly emp ha siz ed t his
ev i den ce at oral argu men t as i t appe ar s to b e th

e S tate ’s str onge st a rgum en t. Morgan Str ot her was Wi

ncot t’s girlfriend fro m May 199 8 unt il hi s ar re st . S he testifi ed that after Aaron Johns on was arrested, W i n cott t old her “tha t Aaro n was —he ha d so me gun,6 Jone s wa s arre sted f i rst, then John son. 7 The St ate also relied on St ro ther ’s testim ony tha t she knew W

in cott drove a bl

ack Ford truck, the same truck t hat, acco rding to Jo nes, he and W in cot t used du ring the three ro bberies. On ly Jo ne s, however , co nne ct s Win co t t ’s t ruc k t o t he cr imes
. I n a na lyzing wh et he rev ide nc e is corro borating, we m

ust not consi

der the ac com

pli ce’ s testi

mony . Edw

ards v . State , 427 S.W.2d 629, 12 I guess, and was supposed to get ri d of i t. And inst ead he we nt home be for e he g ot rid o f it, a nd t he cops were at his house.”

Wh en asked i f W in cott had t o ld h er ho w J o hns o n w as su pp o se d t o ge t r id of the gun, Strot her responded that “[h ]e was supposed to t hrow it m ay be off —it was ei

ther the dam
ora bridge. I don’t remem ber.” Accordi

ng to St rot her, Wi

ncott gr ew conce rn ed

ab out b eing arrested only

after Johns on was arrested. 6 Stro ther testifi ed that Wi

ncott t old he

r “[t]hat Aaron was the ty peof pe rs on that would prett y m

uch giv e up any body to save h

im self,” an d that Wi ncott was concerned

t ha t Jo hns o n w o uld implic at e him in s ometh i ng . The Sta

te a rguestha t the ti m i ng of Wi ncot t’s concern ab out bei ng arrested provided the

li nk be t wee n t he gu n t hat was use d in t he robberies and W

in cot t’s part ici

pation in those robberies. In ad dition to the evi

dence em phasi zed by the Stat e, the record also reveals that W i n cott gene ra lly kep t co mpany

with J ones and the other suspects. Strot her testif ie d that although W i n cott did n ot seem worried after Jones was

arre sted , Wincott “was tr yi ng to make sure [ he] didn’t
co me i n to co n tact re al l y wi th Shad or G ar y or, y ou k n ow, try i n g to stay away

fr o m t he o t he rpe o ple who were i nv olv ed.”She stated t hat Wi

ncott specif

ic ally becam e worried about the robberi es af ter Joh ns on was arrested, but she also explai ned that aft er bo th Jones an

d Johnson we

re arrested, W i n cott “w as c once rn ed

th at h e’ d b e a rre ste d.” The p ros ecuti

on aske d h er h ow sh e k

n ew th at. Stro ther answered, “

Because ev

eryb ody else, y

ou know, t he wh

ole group of people that pr ed o minan t ly

hun g out together, h

ad al ready be en arrested.” 7 W

he n p ut i nto c on text, St ro ther ’s632 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). In setting asi de J o ne s’ s t es t im ony, we co nclude that St ro ther ’s t es t imo ny do es no t t end t o c onne ct t he t ru ck t o t he r obbe ries. Fur t her , no ro bber y victim saw a getaway vehi cl e. “The acc omp lice may sta t e any number of fac t s, a nd t hese fact s may all be corro borated by

the evi dence of ot her wi tnesses; stil

l, i f the f ac ts . . . do not t end t o c onne ct t he defend ant with the crim

e . . . this would not be such corro borat ion as is r eq uir ed b y the c ode.” Umsted v. State , 435 S.W.2d

156, 157 (Tex. Crim . App. 1968). Jones’s cl ai m that W in cott ’s truck was used i

n the robberi

es was n ot corro borated. 8 Tif f an y Mc Mi l l an wa s J on es ’s gi rlf rien d a t th e ti me of h i s a rre st. 13 t est imony ten dsto co nnect Wincot t t o J one s, J ohns on, and t he ot her suspects. Eviden ce that raises gu ilt by ass oci ati on, howev er, i s i ns uf f i cien t to t end to conn

ect W i nc ott t o the rob

beri es. See Weatherred

, 272 S.W. at 472. The St at e u r ge s t ha t in a let t er t o Jo ne s, Winc o t t ad mit ted a fact only a pa rt icipant would kn ow: “As f ar as Ti f f an y goes, I d on’ t know w

ha t you told he

r. The fact t hat she wasn’ t at any of the cri mes m akes a b i g dif f eren ce.” 8 Jones testif

ie d, however, that Johnson an d Wi ll ia ms knew de t ails about the fi

rst t hree robberi

es ev en though they were not i nv ol ve d. Th e re as ona bl e c onc l us i on is th at a l l th es e i n di v i du als w h o “ pr edom i n an tl y h un g ou t to ge th er” knew about the ro bberies, whether or

no t t he y we r e p ar t icip an t s. Su ch ev ide nc e ma y ra ise a s us pic io n t ha t so me com bi na ti on of these i ndi vi dual s partici

pated in any of t he fivero bber ies, bu t even a st ro ng su spicio n is insufficient to corroborate th

e testi mony of the ac com

pli ce wi tnes s. See Umsted

v. State , 435 S.W.2d156, 158 (T ex. Cri m . A pp. 196 8) ( “ Th e te sti

mony . . . rai se s a

stron g suspici on or prob ab i l i ty of . . . guil t, but such does not co nst itu t e pr oo f of .
. . guilt . T he evide nce is no t sufficient t o c or ro bor at e t he t est imony of the ac com pl i cewi tne ss . Th i s b ei ng true , th e m

an da tory prov i si on s of A rt. 38.14 . . . pr o hibit t his co ur t fro m per mitt ingthe con vi cti on to st and. ”); Thomas v

. State , 313 S.W.2d 311, 313 (T ex. Crim

. App. 1958). Thus, the evi dence does n

ot reveal facts that onl

y aparticipant

woul d kn ow9 He al so stat ed i n one l etter that he hoped Jones would comm it sui ci de. 10 W i n cott wrote i n a l ett er to Str oth er t ha t he did no t ge t in t r o ub le e ve ry t ime he was wasted, but that every ti

me he di d get in trouble he h

ad been wasted. 14 and f ai l s to co rr o bo r at e J o ne s’ s t es t imo ny. W e h ave n o more th an a suspici on th at cul m i na tesf rom t he as so cia t io n o f t he se ind ivid ua ls. We r eje ct t he ef fo r t t o eq ua t e g ui lt by a ss o cia t io n wi th
co rr obo ra t ion. See Join t Anti-Fas cist Refugee Comm. v. McG

rath , 341 U.S. 123, 178 (1951) (Douglas, J., concurrin

g) (“guilt by

associ ation [i s] one of the m ost o diousinstit ut ions of h i story . . . . Gui l t unde r our sy stem of g overn

men t is pers onal .”). Admi ssi ons by

Winco tt The St ate relies heavi

ly on Wincott ’s com

m un i ca ti on s, pri mari l y l ette rs , w i th Stro ther and another woman , Am

ber Ram irez, to assert that Win

cott ma de adm is si ons that tend to co nne ct him t o t he r obbe ries. The St at e sp ecifically refers t o Winco t t ’s st at ement t o S t ro t her while discu ssing t he ro bbe rie s t hat he h ad do ne s o me “ba d t hing s” and his e xpr es sio n o f re lief o ver bei ng arrested. T he State al so points to Win cott ’s l etter s to St rot her expres si ng sorrow for the bad thi ngs h e had done. 9 The Stat e urges thatth e “ b ad th i n gs ” ref er re d s pe ci f i ca l l y to th es e th

re e robb eri es

an d n ot to ot her mi sdeedssuch as

hi s drug use. 10 The State also notes a le tt er Wi ncott wr ot e to Rami

rez saying that t he y s hould not talk ab out hi s arrest because h e was ash am ed of i t. The St ate then accuses W i n cott o f at t emp t ing t o qu alify his a dmiss io ns. Th e S t at e a ss er t s t hat o nly aft er h i s a rre st did W i n cott try to in fl uence Strot her i

nto beli evi ng that hi s refe rence to “bad thi

ngs” ref erred to hi s drug
use.11 In one i nstanc e, W

i nc ott wrote a le

tter, which he ha d a no t he rinma t e h an dc o py, that urged Jones to write and sign

a l ette r sayi

ng that Jo nes had l

ied i n i mpl icatin g Wi ncott . The letter also enco ur age d Jo nes t o no t ify his at t or ney abo ut Jo hnso n’s involvement wit h t he hand gun.

15 Moreov er, the St ate po in ts t o lett ers W i n cott w

rote to Joneswhi l e b oth were im prisone d in the same facil

ity, sayi ng they por tr ay Wi

ncot t’s atte m

pt to m an uf ac ture tes ti mony f or his benefit . T he St at e ar gue s t he l ette rsre f l ec t gui l t. F or e x am

pl e, W i n cott gave Jones

advi ce about how t o de al w it h w it ne ss es an d t o pr ep ar e fo rhis o wn t r ial, 11 but then told Jones n ot to dis cl ose that W i n cott was adv i si ng h i m . The S tate

asserts that this proves that Wi ncott knew that if J

ones reveal

ed t his co mmun ica t io n, it wo uld inc r iminat e W inc o t t in the robbe ri es . Such

an i nf ere nc e i s on l y one of many tha t coul d b e d

raw n f rom Wi ncott’s request t hat Jones n ot pu b l i ci ze W i n cott’ s a dv i ce . W i n cott also urgedJon

esto sa bota gethe State ’s ca se by not testify in g agai nst Wi ncott. The State urges that Wi ncot t’s co mmun ica t io ns imp ly t hat Jo nes ha d infor matio n t hat co uld co nvict Winco t t of t he robberies. Bu t t he y jus t as fo r ce fully infer t hat Wincot t t hou ght Jo nes w as falsely acc using W i n cott in or der t o c ur ry favo r w ith t he St at e in Jo nes’s ow n pr os ecu t ion.

Al thoughthe Stat e triesto equate Wincott ’s admi tt ed “bad thi

ngs” to t he robberies, th e te sti m on y at tr i al i s i n con cl us i v e a t b est. [Strother]: [W

i n cott] ma de a s t at eme nt t ha t he ha d d o ne so me bad thin gs in the past and that he an

d Brad had done some b ad thin

gs i n the past, but that was

–

. . . . [State]: Di

d h e s pe ci f y at th at p oi n t wh at h e w as tal ki n g a b out? [Strother]: No.16 . . . . [State]: In

Decem ber, bef ore he was arrested

when he was t alking abo ut wo rr ying about bei ng arrested for the bad thi

ngs that he an

d Brad had d one , w as he put t ingt hat in the c ont ext of ha vingdo ne dr ug s t o ge t he r ? O rwa s it in the context of the robberi es and ev eryb ody be in

g arrested? [Strother]: He didn’ t say

i t in an y contex t real l y . I me an we w ere talki ng ab out sev eral thi ngs , and we were tal

ki ng a bout the robb eries. . . . Stro ther was pregnan

t with Wi ncott’s chi ld a

t t he tim e he was arrested. The y were discu ssing that pr eg na nc y, am

ong ot her t hi ngs, whe

n W in cott brought up the bad thi ngs h e had done. Strot her stated t hat in a late r p hone call Wincot t t old her he wa s re ferr ing t o his d ru g us e whe n he ha d expressed remorse for havin g done so me b ad things. In their v ague context—a conversati on in volv in g various su

b j ec ts any of which c ou ld be construed as “b ad thin

gs”—his statemen

ts do not tend to co nne ct h i m to th e cri mes wi th which he
was ch arg ed. At mo st , t hey raise a mere sus picion t hat he is re ferr ing t o his p ar t icipat ion in t he robb eri es. As

noted, even a

strong s uspi cion i s i ns uf f i cien t to satis f y arti cle 38.1 4. Umsted

, 43 5 S.W.2d at 158.

Lik ewi se, the comm

unications that the State characterizes as attempts to ma

nuf act ur e favo ra ble te st imony

rai se n o more than a su spi cion tha t Wi nc ott partic i

pated i n the robb eries. His sta tem en ts to J on es

re f er n ot onl y to the crim

es wi th which W

in cott was cha

rged, but also to o ther robberi es i

n w hi ch Wi nc ott was not i

m pli cated. The

re wa s ev i den ce i n l etters that Jones considered W i n cott t h e on l y pers on ca pa b l e of gi v i n g h i m wise cou n se l . J on es

wrote to W i

n cott: Wh en we were f

ree, you w er e t he o nly perso n on t he planet t hat I r esp ect ed. Believe it because it’s true. T he f act that I act ually

heard y our wis e words, no matter what17

yo ut hink, I always at least t hou ght abo ut what you s aid. The fact that when you talked I did li

sten, to me, is a

sign of h ow I looked up t o you. T his re l ati on sh i p of tru st m ay ex pl ai n W i n cott’ s a ttem pt to guide

Jones through his l egal

travail s as muc h as mo t ive t o manip ula t e evide nce. Su ch an e xplanat ion is su ppo rt ed by t he fact t hat , a s t he Stat e ac kn ow ledge d, Wincot t must have k now n t hat all of t hese co mmunicatio ns wo uld be in tercepted an d s er ve as po t en t ial e vid en ce in his tria l . Wi nc ott’s l etters re f

l ect h i s rea sona bl e concern about t he o ut co me of

his ow n t rial, bu t t hey do no mo re t han link Wincot t t o J one s. T hey do not link h i m to the particular crim

es wi th w hi ch he wa s cha rge d. Ev i de nc e of gui l t by as soc i ati on d oesnot suf f i ce a s corrob orati

ng e vi den ce. See Weatherr

ed, 272 S.W. at 472. Con scio usn ess of G uilt

The St at e c o nt en ds , no ne t he les s, t ha t Win cot t’s l ette rsen cou ra gi n g Jon es n ot to t es t ify are attempts to ma

ni pula te evi dence that i

ndicate a sense of

guil t and as such , they

pr ese nt ci rcumstances tendin

g to prove he com

mi tt ed the crim es wit h which he is cha rg ed. Co nduc t on t he part of a p er son

ac cu se d of

a cri me sub se que

nt to i ts c om m i ss i on m ay i nd i ca te a con sc i ous ne ss

of gu ilt for that crim

e. See Brow

n v. State , 65 7 S
. W. 2d 11 7, 11 9 ( T ex . Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 )
. Ad di t io na lly, th e S tate ar gue s t hat in Casias , thi s C ourt f oun d suf f i ci en t corrobor

ati on in evi dence that, as here, did no t sp ec ifically ide nt ify an off enseor vi cti m . See Casias , 3 6 S .W. 3d a t 902 . T he St at e mainta ins t ha t t he ev id en ce as a w ho le s uf fic ien t ly co rr o bo r at es Jo ne s’ s t es t imo ny. The casesi

nv olv i ng a ttempts to ma

ni pul ate ev i den ce c i ted by the State , however, are dis tingui shab le
. For

exam ple, th e c ourt of cri m i na l appe als f oun d that the d ef

en da nt’ s p oss es si

on of
a gu n a nd his t hr ea t s t o kill t he vic t im’s family con sti tute d a n ef f ort to suppress an

d destroy evi

dence18

agains t hi m . B ro wn , 657 S.W .2d at 11 9. Si m i l arl y , th i s C our t h el d th at th e def en da n t’s th re ats to his wif e to t ake away

her m il itary ben efi ts and her chil dren’s mil itar y identificat ion ca rd s if she testifi ed ref l ected a cons ciousness

of g uil t, and wasthere f

ore adm i ssi bl e. Torres , 794 S.W.2d

at 598. In yet a n oth er ca se , the def

en da n t t hrea t en ed t he pr o se cu t io n, “I ’ll g et yo u if it ’s t he las t t hing I ’ll do.” Johnso n v. State , 583 S.W .2d 399 , 408-0 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1979 ). Wi ncot t’s prot estations of i

nnocen ce, even in the form of aski ng Jones to adm it that he l i ed orto not te sti

f y al toge the r, a re f ar d i f f ere nt f rom the threa ts th at i nd i ca te a con sc i ous ne ss

of gui l t. The evi dence on wh

ic h the State relies onl

y pe rsuades us that Wi

ncott so ught to bri

ng out what he pe r ce ive d t o be t he t rut h in t he ca se . He did no t t hr ea t en Jo ne s, no rdid he as k J o ne s t o t ell a dif feren t v er si on of th e ev en ts. W i n cott’ s a cti on s, as se rti n g h i s i n n oce n ce , do n ot am

oun t t o man i pul ati on of evi dence that i

ndicates a c ons ci

ous ne ss of guil t and are not suff

ic ie ntly corro borating. Evid ence as a W hole

Fin ally, the St ate ur ges that the eviden ce as a w hole is s imi

lar t o t hat in Casias , in wh i ch wef oun d suf f i ci en t corrobor

ati on of t he ac co mp lice ’s t es t imo ny. See Casias , 36 S.W.3d at 902. The chief co rr obo ra t ing evidenc e in Casiasin cl uded testim

ony f rom an i nm ate, Vernon

Wa l ker, i n ca rc erate d w i

th Casias . Wa lker t est ifi

ed t hat Casias t old him that he ha d o r de r ed a h it o n “s o me Bl ood or whit e du de, ” but t hat t he gunm an ch ic kened out and acci

dentally shot anotherpers on. Id
. Th i s n on -a cc om pl i ce testi mon y al on e te n de d to con

n ec t Ca si as to t he mur der . Wa lker ’s t est imony
was co mbined wit h o t her , a mbigu o us incu lpa t o ry e vide nce and t o ge t her we fo und it su ff i ci en t t o cor rob ora te the accompl

ic e. Here, there is n

o sin gle pie ce of i ncul pator y e vi dence other than

Jones’s19

t es t imo ny. Thatalone will not suffice. Bec aus e t he St at e failed t o p ro duc e no n-a cco mplice te st imony tend i ng to con ne ct Wi nc ott t o the thr

ee rob beri es, w e su stai

n W i nc ott’s f i rst poi nt of error. CONCLU SION We hold t hat Wi

nco tt f ai l ed to pre serv e error r

eg ard i ng the bol steri ng na ture of Det ect iveWilliams ’s t es t im on y . N on eth

el es s, we h ol d th at th e S tate ’s ev i den ce di d n ot ten d to connect W i n cott t o th e cri

mes . Al th oug h th e S tate i n tr oduced a su bstanti al

am ount o f ev

ide nce atte m pti ng to prov e W i nc ott’s pa rtici pa ti on in the ro bberies, t he no n- ac co mplic e t es t imo ny mer ely connected

W i n cott to the accomplice and ot her suspects but not t o t he off enses thems elv

es. Because
su sp i ci on al one does not

sat isfy the S t at e’s bu rd en t o c or ro bor at e Jo nes’s t est imony, we re ver se t he
co nvic t io n a nd r en de rjud gme nt o f ac qu it t al.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Reversed a

nd Ren dered File d: June 7, 2001 Publish