NO. 07-06 -033 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A OC TOBER13, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ ADRIAN BIERA, APPE LLA NT

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; th NO. 200 5-41 0,7 09; HON. JIM BOB DARNEL L, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION A jury foun d ap pellan t Adrian Biera guilty o f a gg rav ate d robb eryand the trial court ass ess ed puni shmentat si xty ye a rs impr is onment i n the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Jus ti ce, Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion
. Appel lan t app eal s h is co nv icti on by four is sues . Fi ndi ng the cour t er re d i n i ts charg e to the j ur y and the error

w as har mf ul, w e rev erse and remand for a new tr ial
.2 Back g ro und On S ept e m b er

7, 2005, at ab out 6 :00 a .m., a Lubbo ck , Tex as, W hataburg er restau rant was robb ed b y tw o perp etrat ors arme d w ith ha ndgun s. Th ey w ore m asks, g lov es, and camouflag e c lot hin g and had w it h the m a b a g t h a t a re sta urant e mploy ee describe d as a “duf

f le bag looking thing.” The restaura nt m a n a ger and em ployee w ere hel d at g unpoi nt w hil e the robbers t ook money from cash draw ers. The manag er es ti mated the robber

y l ast ed th re e to fiv e mi nutes and after the robbers fle d he cal led 9- 1- 1. T h e Lu b b o ck p o lic e o f

f ice r who f irs t re sp o n d e d to th e ca ll o b se rved lo o se ch a n ge on th e floor

and found an unspe nt .380 cal ibe r car tr idg e, w hic h w as sec ured as ev ide nce. One fin g er pr intw as als o l ifted for co mpari son. Appel lan t oc cupi ed a four- bedroom apar tm ent i n Lubbo ck
. At t he ti me of the robb ery app ellant ’s tw o children also liv ed there, along w ith Maria Vargas, Vargas’ cousin Stephanie Y z ag uir re , her ten- y ear-o ld daug hter , and Yz ag uir re ’s co mmon-l aw hus band, Mi g uel Mo ra do. Ev ide nce of extraneous cr imi nal co nductby al l the a dul t oc cupan ts w as admitted. U se of il leg al dr ug s, inc lud ing methamphet amine, w as freq uent. Vargas w orked at a Lu bbo ck mot el. During the t ime she w as staying at ap pellan t’s apar tment, sh e beg an s teal ing cu sto mer credi t c ards. W hen que sti oned by pol ic e about the t hefts s he ul ti matel y co nfessed and t hen t old w hat s he k new of appel lan t, Mo ra do, t he W hataburg er

robber y , and ac ti v ity

at appel lan t’ s a par

tment. Ba sed on th is i nformati on, Lubboc k p oli ce cl ass ified appel lan t and M orado s uspects in the robber y .3

Mo ra do and app e l l a n t w ere s ubseq uentl y ar re ste d and ind icted for the W hataburg er ro bber y . Base d on a g uil ty

pl ea, M orado receive d a t wen ty-y ear se ntenc e. At t ri al, he tes ti fied atl eng th ab out t he robber y and appel lan t’ s i nv olv ement. Acc o rd i n g t o M o ra d o , h e , a n d a t t i me s a p p e l l a n t , b u rg l a r i z e d c a rs a t n i g h t. They car ri ed w eapons inc lud ing a nin e- mil li meter handg un and a ri fle. Appel lan t al so car ri ed a bla ck handg un. On t he ni g ht of the r obber y M orado, appel lan t, and an uni denti fied mal e s moked methampheta mine. The t ri o drov e Varg as’ ca r and broug ht hu nti ng mask s Yz ag uir re had purchas ed atappel lan t’ s req uest
. Mo ra do par ked behi nd th e W hataburg er w hil e appel lan t and t he ot her

man ent ered th e rest aurant. Aboutfiv e to ten mi nutes l ater a p p ell ant a nd the o ther man retur ned t o the ca r. They drov e to appel lan t’ s apartment w here the y di v ide d the robber

y proceed s. M orado recei v ed j ustov er $40 in bil ls and chang e. In i ts charg e to the jur

y at the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of t ri al, the cour t ins tr uct ed th at Mo ra do w as an ac compl ic e as a mat ter o f l a w but refused appe ll ant’ s req uestfor a n ins tr uct ion co ncer nin g Yz ag uir re as an a cc ompli ce as a matt er of fact. Iss ues In four iss ues appel lan t contend s: (1 ) the e v ide nce w as ins uff ic ien t t o c or ro borate the accom plice test imo ny of Morado; (2) the court failed to instruct th e jury on Yz aguirre as an accom plice as a m atte r of fact; (3) the court erred in adm itting extrane ous e v iden ce4

not a ll ow ed by

Tex . R . Ev id. 404( b) ; and ( 4) the cour t er re d in n o t e x cl udi ng extraneous ev ide nce under

R ule 403. Di sc uss ion Issue Two: Failure to Inst ruct on Acco mp lice as a Matter of Fact W e beg in w it h appel lan t’ s sec ond is sue. Vi a that is sue, appel lan t arg ues the t ri al cour t er re d by

refusing hi s req uest ed i nst ru cti on c oncer nin g w hether Yza g uir re w as an acc ompli ce as a matt er of fact. An a cc ompli ce is so meone w ho par ti ci pates w it h the defendant before, dur ing , or

after the commi ss ion of

a cr ime and acts w it h t h e re q u i re d c u l p a b l e me n t a l s t a t e . To b e c o n s i d er ed an acc ompli ce w it ness , the w it ness ’s par ti ci pati on w it h the d e fe n d a n t mu s t h a v e i n v o l v e d s o me a ffi r ma t i v e a c tthat promotes the commi ss ion of the o ff e nse w it h w hic h the def end antis charg ed. A w itness is notan acco mp lice w itness merel y bec a u se he or she knew of the o ffense and di d not dis cl ose it , o r e ven if he o r she conc eal ed i t. In addi ti on, t he w it ness ’s m e re presenc e at the s cene of the c ri me does not re nder that wit ness an a cc ompli ce w it ness . And c ompli ci ty w ith an a c c u s ed in th e com mission of ano the r of

fense apa rt f rom the charg ed of

fense doe s not ma ke tha t wit n e s s’s tes ti mony

thatof an ac compl ic e w it ness . Dr uer y v . St ate, 225 S. W .3d 4 91, 4 98 (T e x.Cr im.A pp. 2 007) ( footnotes and ci tati ons omit ted)
. A w it ness i s a n ac compl ic e i f she coul d be prosec uted for th e s ame offense as the d efendant or

a l ess er

i ncl uded offense. Bl

ake v. State, 971 S. W .2d 4 51, 4 54- 55 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)
. This means a w it ness is an acc ompli ce if the ev ide nce so conne cts her to th e crime th at she is a “ blam eworthy participan t.” Id. “ W het her the person is act ual ly ch arg ed and prosec uted for th eir par ti ci pati on i s i rrele v ant to the determi nati on ofTh e f ull text of th e acco mp lice w itness rule p rov ides: 1 A c o n vict ion can notbe ha d up on th e test imo ny of an acco mp lice unless cor ro borated by

othe r ev ide nce te n din g to conne ct the d efendant w it h the o f fe n s e co m m it t e d ; a n d t h e co rr o b o ra t io n is n o t s u f f ic ie n tif itm e re ly s h o ws the c ommis si on of the offense. T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. art. 38 .14 (Vernon 200 5). 5 accom plice stat us - - w hatmat ters i s t h e e viden ce in the record.” Id. at 45 5. The tes ti mony

of an ac compl ic e i s c onsi dered unt ru stw o rt hy and shoul d be “recei v ed and v iew ed a nd a cted on w ith cau tion. ” W alk er v. Sta te, 615 S. W .2d 7 28, 7 31 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1981)
. Thus, “b efore a conv icti on mayrestupon an accompl ic e w it ness ’s tes ti mony , t hat tes ti mony

mustbe c or ro borated by independen t ev ide nce tendi ng to conne ct the a cc used w ith the crime.” Dr

uer y, 225 S. W .3d a t 498 ; se e Tex . C ode of C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 38.14 (Verno n 20 05). 1 Onc e an acc ompli ce tes ti fies, i t i s for the jur y to deter mine if the tes ti m o n y w as suffici entl y

co rroborated. Bl

ake, 9 7 1 S
. W .2d at 455 . If the evidence estab lishes as a m a t t e r o f la w th e w i t n e s s is a n a c c o m p li c e , t h e co u rtm u s tin s t ru c tt h e ju ry a c c o rd in gl y. Gam ez v. Sta te, 737 S. W .2d 3 15, 3 22 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1987)
. But if the par ti es present conf licting or unclea r ev iden ce as t o wh eth er a w itness is an a ccom plice, th e jury must ini ti all y dete rmi ne, o n i nst ru cti on, w hether the w it ness is an acc ompli ce as a matt er of fact. C o c k e v . Sta te, 2 0 1 S .W .3d 7 44, 7 48 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006) ; Bl ake, 971 S.W .2d a t 455
. App ellantrequested an instruct ion th at Yz aguirre w as an accom plice w itness a s a m a tt e r of fa ctan d obje ct e d atth e tri a l co u rt ’s re f u sa l to in clu d e th e in st ru ct io n in its ch a rge6

t o t h e ju ry. “I tis we ll se t t le d t h a ta n a c c u s e d h a s a ri gh tt o a n in s t ru c t io n o n a n y d e fe n s ive is sue ra i s e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e , w h e t h e r t h a t e v i d e n c e i s w e a k o r s t ro n g , u n i mp e a ched or cont ra dicted, and reg ardle ss of w hat t he tr ial co urt may or may not thi nk about the credib il it y of

the evidence .” Gr

anger v. Sta te, 3 S.W .3d 36, 38 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). W hen t he ev ide nce ra is es a q uest ion of factconcer nin g w hether or notthe w it ness i s a n acc ompli ce, the tr ial co urt s houl d i nst ru ct the j urors to resol v e the fact i ss ue. Kun kle v. State, 771 S. W .2d 4 35, 4 39 ( Tex .C ri m.App.1 986)
. Appel lan t w as ind icted fo r th e of fense of ag g ra v ated ro bber y . A person commi ts ro bber y i f, in the c ourse of commit ti ng theft and w it h int ent to obtai n or maint ain cont ro l of the p ro per

ty , t he person (1 ) int enti onal ly , k now ing ly , or reck les sl y

ca uses bodi ly

i nju ry to another or ( 2) i ntent ion all y

or kn ow ing ly

threatens or

pl aces anot h e r in fear of immine nt bodi ly inj ur

y or deat h. See T ex. Pe nal Code A nn. § 29.0 2(a) (Vernon 200 3). Th e of fense becomes ag g ra v ated if the person uses or ex hib it s a deadl y w eapon. See i

d. § 29. 03( a) (2 ) (Verno n 20 03). “A person is cr imina lly respon sible as a party to an o f fense if th e of

fense is comm itted byhis ow n con duct , by the cond uct of a not her for w hich he is cr imina lly respo nsible, or by

both .” T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 7.0 1(a) (Vernon 200 3). A person is cr imi nal ly

respon si ble for

the offense commi tted by anot her i f, acti ng w it h i ntentto promote or as si st the commis si on of the offense, the person sol ic it s, enco urag es, direct s, ai ds, or attempt s t o ai d the othe r person’ s c ommis si on of the offense. Se e Tex
. Penal Cod e Ann. § 7.0 2( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 3)
.7

T o re s o lve t h e q u e s t io n wh e t h e r Yza gu ir re c o u ld h a ve b e e n ch a rg e d a s a p a rt y, we look to the evidence
. No one den ies tha t by purch asing masks for app ellantat his request Yz aguirre a id e d o r a t t em pte d to aid the com mission of the rob bery. T he quest ion is w hether sh e pos ses sed the re q uis it e int ent to be charg ed as a par ty , t hat i s, w hether

sh e acte d w ith the inten t to prom ote or assist the com mission of the o f fense . Inten t is a q uest ion of fact th at t he j ur y dete rmi nes from al l the c ircums tanc es. See Sm it h v . St ate, 965 S.W .2d 509 , 518 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 8). The ev ide nce of int ent w as confli cti ng . Y z ag uir re tes ti fied appe ll ant t old her thathe and hi s u ncl e pl anned t o g o hunt ing , and sh e di sc laim e d k n ow led g e tha t app ell ant int ended t o use the m ask s for anyother pur pose. M orado al so deni ed hi s w ife had pr ior knowledge of

the rob bery and the purpo se of the m asks. On t h e o t h er han d, evidence abounded of cr imi nal ac ti v ity by the inh abi tants of ap pel lan t’ s apar tment. The prosec utor infor med the cour

t bef o re t rial beg an th at s he bel iev ed th e W hataburg er robber y w as commi tted to ob tai n dr ug money for the inh abi tants of t he apar tment. D espi te t he c ommon use of il leg al dr ug s bythose li v ing at the apartment, only Varg as w as g ain fully

empl oy ed. Varg as tes ti fied s he g av e sto len credi t c ards to Yz ag uir re and Mo ra do. The credi t c ards w ere us ed to purchas e ga s for c ars b elo ng ing to Mo ra do, V arg as, and appel lan t. Acc ordin g to Mo ra do, t he c ards als o w ere us ed atgas stati ons to pu rc hase fuel w hic h w as sol d to thi rd par

ti es at half-pr ic e for

ca sh. After

mov ing i nto a ppel lan t’ s a par tment, M orado beg an s teal ing to re pay appel lan t for li ving a ccommodati ons. The S tate int ro ducedAl thoug h the Stat e arg ues in re spons e to appel lan t’ s t hird and fourth is sues that 2 the e v ide nce of drug us e by the apar

tment’ s i nhabi tants and extraneous c a r burg lar ies com mitt ed b y

Morado an d ap pellan t w as prop erly adm itted at trial to prove appe llant’s ide nti ty as the ro bber , i t c ontends there w as no ev ide nce to s how Yz ag uir re ac ted w it h a cul pabl e i ntentw hen s he boug ht t he c amouflag e mask s. 8 numerous photog ra phs tak en by pol ic e i n t h e apartment , s how ing dr ug s, dr ug p a ra p h e rn a li a a n d st o le n p ro p e rt y. 2 Y z ag uir re boug ht t he mas ks four day s b efore t he robber y . She t est ified appel lan t gav e he r mon ey, asking her to purchase tw o hun ting ma sks. App ellantallow ed Yz aguirre use o f his car fo r th e errand
. T o f ulf ill app ellant ’s req uest , Yz aguirre w entto several reta il sto re s before loc ati ng and purchas ing the sk i- sty le camouflag e mask s at a W a l-Mar t. Y z ag uir re pl aced suc h a pri or ity on ful fill ing appel lan t’ s req uestthatsh e fors ook atten din g a rela ti v e’s bi rt hday

par ty
. Y z ag uir re tes ti fied appe ll ant a nd M orado us ual ly ca rr ied g uns w hen t hey l eft the apar tment. O ne ni g ht after

Yz ag uir re purchas ed the mask s, appel lan t and Mo ra do left t he apar tment ar med w it h bl ack g uns. They

took w it h the m a foldi ng ch air bag but itdi d not cont ain a c hai r. Y z ag uir re “fig ured” appel lan t put the mask s s he purchas ed for him in the foldi ng ch air

bag
. The ju ry mig ht ha v e beli ev ed Yz ag uir re innoce ntl y accompl is hed no more than an errand for a f riend who allow ed h er, her da u ghter, and Morado to liv e rent-f ree at h is re sid e n ce . B u t itm igh t, c o n vers e ly, h a ve d o u b te d he r st o ry th a t t h e ski -st yle c a m o u f la ge ma sks she bo ught in Sep tem b e r we re in ten ded for hun ting, and believed Yz aguirre int enti onal ly

as si ste d M orado and appel lan t obt ain money by ro bber y to suppo rtthe9

occ upants of appel lan t’ s a par tment. In it s charg e, the cour t ins tr uct ed the jur

y on the l aw of parties bu t decline d over objection to instruct on the issue of Yz aguirre as an accom plice as a matt er of fact
. By omit ti ng acc ompli ce as a matter of fact ins tr uct ion s a s t o Yz ag uir re , the t ri al cour

t er re d. W e mu st now consider w het her the error w as harm less. A court’s failure to su bm it an ac compl ic e as a mat ter of factinst ru cti on mayamount to ha rml ess er ro r if so me nonacc ompli ce ev ide n ce ex is ts tendi ng to conne ct the a cc used to t he offense. Herron v. State, 86 S. W .3d 6 21, 6 32 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)
. Und er su ch ci rc umstan ces the omis si on of the i nst ruct io n i s h a rmles s b ecaus e i ts pur pose has been fulfil led
. Id. “ [A] ha rmless er ro r anal y si s for

the omis si on of an ac compl ic e w it n e ss inst ru cti on s houl d be flex ibl e, tak ing i nto a cc ount the e x is tenc e and streng th of any non- acc o m p lic e ev ide nce and t he app licable sta nda rd of

rev iew .” Id. Be caus e appel lan t proper ly preser v ed his cl aim of error by time ly

calling to th e trial court’s atte ntion t h e o m is sion of an acco mp lice in fa ct ins tr uct ion pertai nin g to Y z ag uir re , w e rev iew the er ro r to deter mine if “some” harm resul ted from the omis si on. Al

m anza v . St ate, 686 S.W .2d 157, 171 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1984) (o p. on re h ’ g )
. C a s e s i n v o l v i n g p re s e r v e d c h a rg e e r ro r

a re to b e a ffi r me d o n l y i f nohar m has o cc u rred. Ar

li ne v . St ate , 72 1 S. W .2 d 34 8, 35 1 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 19 86 ) ( em ph as i s in or ig ina l)
. T he su f f ic ie n c y o f

corroborat ing ev iden ce is tested byelimina ting the acco mp lice w itness testimo ny and the n examinin g the rema ining evidence to det ermin e the ex istence or not of ev ide nce conne cti ng the defendant w it h the co mmiss ion of the o ffense. Mu noz10

v. State, 8 5 3 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 8 , 5 5 9 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 3 )
. I ti s n o tn e c e s s a r y t h a tthe re maini ng ev ide nce direct ly link the defendant to the cr ime or prov e al l the e lement s o f the charg ed offense. Gi

ll v. Sta te, 873 S. W .2d 4 5, 48 ( Tex .C rim .A p p. 19 94)
. There is no preci se ru le as to th e a mount of ev ide nce that is req uired, a nd eac h c ase is to be considered on it s o w n facts and ci rc umstan ces . Id.;Munoz , 853 S. W .2d a t 559
. In re v iew ing the streng th of the co rroborati ng ev ide nce, w e “ ex amine (1 ) it s re liabi li ty or bel iev abi li ty

and (2 ) the s treng th of i ts tendency to conne ct the d efe n d a n t to t he c ri me.” Her ro n, 86 S. W .3d a t 632
. The t est imonyo f o n e a cc ompli ce maynot cor ro borate t he te stimony

of another

ac compl ic e. See Chapm an v . St ate, 4 7 0 S
. W
. 2 d 656, 660 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1971)
. Among the cor ro borati ng ev ide nce w as the t est imony of the W hataburg er

empl oy ee on d uty at the tim e of the robb ery , w ho d escribed the m asks w orn by the robb ers as “like a mask from W al- Ma rt ,” w it h l arg e ey e openi ng s. H e obs er v ed one ro bber

att empted t o empty the cont ents of a c ash re g is ter draw er i nto the “d uff le bag loo ki ng thi ng .” The t all er robb er dropp ed h is hand gun. T he em ployee assum ed the weapo n ejecte d a she ll w hich w as the u nspen t . 380 c ali ber sh ell l ater

found on t he rest aurant flo or . Acc ordin g to the W hataburg er manag er , t he ey e openi ng s o f the mask s resembl ed “an eight ly ing dow n.” He w as w ithin th ree feeto f a r o b b er and obse rv ed h is ey es, ey ebrow s and upper cheek bones
. The manag er descr ibe d this suspec t as H is pani c, about 5’ 7’’ w eig hin g 150- 160 pou nds, w it h darke yes , d a rk ey ebrow s a nd l ig ht s ki n. He w as ar med w it h w hat t he manag er bel iev ed w as a black

nine- mil li meter . The manag er ag re ed11

t h e ro b b e r

a n d a p p e l l a n th a d “ s i mi lar” feat u re s . B u tt h e m a n a g e r c o u l d n o ti d e n t i fy appel lan t as the ro bber
. Acc ordin g to Varg as, at ti mes ap pel lan t and M orado bor ro w ed her ca r after midni g ht and remaine d aw ay

from t he apar

tment for hours. Af

ter these outi ng s, Varg as found the int er ior dec orati ons of her car sto w ed in the g lov e compar tment. O n one occ asi on, V arg as found a box

of lat ex g lov es in her

ca r. Varg as li v ed i n appel lan t’ s a par tment about tw o months, from the end of Ju ly i nto September
. Dur ing thi s ti me she obser v ed appel lan t car ry ing tw o di fferent h andg uns. O ne w as si lv er

and the o ther

bl ack
. On “ some” oc cas ion s w hen app ell ant l eft at ni g ht in her ca r he w as ar med w it h one of the hand g uns. Aft e r t h e ro b b e r

y , V a rg a s o v e r h e a rd a n u n d i s c l o s e d c o n v e rs a t i o n i n v o l v ing Y z ag uir re . Res pondi ng to a q uest ion from Va rg as, Yz a gui rre t h re w a ne w spape r at he r cont ain ing a repor

t of the ro bber

y . Mo ra do w as abl e to loa n Vargas ch a n ge fo r buy ing bee r. According to Vargas, she th en “pu t tw o an d tw o togeth er.” Som e three w eeks a f

ter the rob bery, a Lubb ock po lice dete ctiv e w entto app ellant ’s apar tment. Sh e w as tol d appel lan t had been ev icted, but heard l oud mus icco ming from w it hin and g ain ed admi ss ion from t he manag er . Ins ide w ere appel lan t and others w hom she ar re ste d for cr imi nal trespas s. W hen t he det ect iv e c onduc ted a sw e ep s earch of appell ant’ s a par tment she encou ntered Chr is ti na Ort iz , als o an occ upant of appel lan t’ s apartment, ly ing on the bed12

in a p p e llant’s bedroom. Und er a bl anketon t he bed, the detecti v e found a . 40 c ali ber Beret ta ha ndgun . Initially the weapon w as er ro n e o u s ly identif ied as a n ine-m illimete r. Other w eapons w ere found in the apar tment but the col lecti on did not inc lud e a n ine mil li meter

or a . 380 c ali ber

handg un. In t he l iv ing ro om of the ap artm e n t, loc ated in a g obl et, the d etec ti v e found a .380 cal ibe r shel l. It and the .380 cali ber sh ell found at the ro bber y s ce n e we re su bmit ted t o the D epar tment of Publi c S afetycr ime lab orator y for anal y si s. About a w eek after th e i n it ial s earch, the detecti v e recei v ed w ord tha t t he manag ement of the apar tment compl ex w here appel lan t li v ed w as re mov ing the cont ents of his apar

tment. O n ar ri v al at t he apar tment, the detec ti v e obs er v ed appe ll ant p lac ing it ems i n hi s c ar . She arrest ed appell ant on an outs tandi ng m is demeanor w ar ra nt. In a bag pla ced in appel lan t’ s v ehi cl e by C hr is ti na Ort iz , the detecti v e found a .45 cal ibe r handg un. T o em pty the cont ent s of app ellant ’s apartm ent , ma int e n a n c e w orkers for the lan dlord entered and pla ced it ems of pe rs onal proper ty in pla sti c t ra sh bag s. The bag s w ere the n seton t he l aw n of the apar tment compl e x. F o llo w ing an i nq uir y of the d etec ti v e, t he ass is tant a p a rt me n tm a n a g e r fo u n d c a mo u fl a g e m a s k s i n o n e o f t h e t ra s h b a g s . T he mask s w ere admi tted int o ev ide nce at t ri al and on re cal l the W hataburg er manag er

ag re ed that they appeared to be t he s ame mask s w or n by the ro bbers. The detecti v e tes ti fied th at she was informe d the m asks w ere stored in a “camp chair bag.” At the time of app ellant ’s ev icti on, s he found a bag fitt ing thi s d esc ri pti on, b ut w as u n a ble to say w hether i t w as loc ated in appel lan t’ s b edroom or on t he apar

tment compl ex

l aw n.13

The Stat e’s cr ime lab orator y anal y st tes ti fied th at a Beretta n i n e - mi l l i me t er pi sto l and .40 c ali ber

pi sto l appear

v ir tual ly i denti cal
. He compared the .380 cal ibe r shel l found at t he ro bber y sc ene w it h the .380 cal ibe r shel l the detecti v e found in appel lan t’ s a par tment. The bullet s shared a com mo n ma nuf actu rer, Remington , butthe DPS a nalyst agreed on crossex aminat ion thatprobabl y “ tens of thous a n d s” o f .380 c ali ber sh ell s w ere av ail abl e for re sal e i n Lubbo ck
. A Lub bock p olice of

f icer mad e com parison s of the f ingerprint foun d at th e robb ery sc ene w ith e xempl ars o f appell ant a nd M orado. The pr intmatc hed nei ther
. The off ic er w as unabl e to obtai n a p ri nt fro m tw o handg uns found at ap pel lan t’ s a par tment. The Stat e’s final pie ce of ev ide nce w as an ex cer pt fro m a recorded j ail tel ephone conv ersa ti on betw een app ell ant a nd C hr is ti na Or ti z . In c los ing arg ument, the S tate highlig hte d an excerpt t hatit and ap pellan t interpre t, “I’m no t going to do 99 years becau se some f- -- -- - m—- -- -- -- -- - can’ t hol d ont o hi s s -- -. ” Ac cordin g to the S tate, thi s w as an inc ulp ator

y st atement in re spons e to Mo ra do’ s confess ion
. And the v er nacul ar parall ele d that used by

one of the robbers. Evaluating this bod y

o f n on-a ccom plice evidence und er t he stan dard prescribed in Her ro n , 8 6 5 S
. W
. 3 d a t6 3 2 , we f in d i td o e s n o tt e n d t o c o n n e c ta p p e ll a n tt o t h e ro b b e ry. Apar t from the tes ti mony of Yz ag uir re and Mo ra do, the pil lars of t he St ate’ s p ro of are the mask s a nd th e i denti ficat ion te st imonyof the W hataburg er manag er . He obser

v ed a similarity of

facial feat ures be tw een app ellant and the shorter robb er. But he w as un able to i denti fy appel lan t as a robber
. This l eav es the mas ks
.14

In Mu noz

, 853 S. W .2d 5 58, t he onl y no n- acc ompli ce tes ti mony co nnect ing the acc used to t he murder

of a conv eni ence sto re cl er k w as the w ra pper of a “ Bi c” l ig hter found in the a cc used’ s v ehi cl e. The st ore w here the cl er k w as ki ll ed s toc ked Bi c l ig hters b ut t he manag er co uld not ide nti fy the w ra pper in ev ide nce as comi ng from the sto re . Id. at 56 1- 52. This w as hel d i nsuffici ent c or ro borati v e ev ide nce. Id. a t 564. H ere, w it hout Y z ag uir re ’s tes ti mony , t he mas ks are ti ed to appel lan t onl y by thei r loc ati on atthe apar tment Mo ra do, the confess ed ro bber , als o occ upi ed. But nothi ng sh ow s t he trash bag cont ain ing the mask s hel d onl y appel lan t’ s proper ty
. Lik e i n Mu noz , w e find that ins uff ic ien t cor ro borati on. Finding the e v iden ce did no t f ulf ill the pu rp ose o f the m issing accom plice in fact ins tr uct ion as to Y z ag uir re , w e c annot say i ts absen ce w as har mles s. Appe ll ant s uffered some harm from i ts omis si on. Her ro n, 86 S.W .3d at 632. W e sus tai n appel lan t’ s s econd is sue. Finding app ellant ’s second issue dispo sitiv e of the ap pea l, w e do not ad dress his re maini ng iss ues. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 47. 1. W e rev erse the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment and remand the case for a new tr ial. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Publ is h.