Phuong Hoai Cao v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-04-00474-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 20, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Phuong Hoai Cao was found guilty of two felony burglary offenses by a jury, while being acquitted of possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court imposed a forty-year sentence for each burglary, to run concurrently, after confirming a prior felony burglary. On appeal, Cao argued that the convictions lacked sufficient corroborating accomplice testimony as mandated by Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

The court upheld the conviction for one burglary (cause number 942823) but reversed the second conviction (cause number 961668) and rendered a judgment of acquittal. 

The case involved two separate burglaries in Harris County. In January 2003, Deputy Craig Clopton responded to a burglary at Victor Le's home, where entry was forced through broken windows and a Mossberg shotgun was reported stolen. Victor Le identified a shotgun later found in Cao’s apartment as his stolen property. 

On March 11, 2003, another burglary occurred at Randy Van Le's home. His son, Vicmor, observed a man attempting to enter their home and noted a suspicious red Honda C.R.V. parked nearby. After hearing a window break, Vicmor called the police. Family friend Linda Gates, who also witnessed the suspicious vehicle, recorded its license plate before the occupants sped away. The vehicle was traced to Giang Vu Do, who confessed to the burglaries and implicated Cao as his accomplice.

Do admitted to stealing guns from Victor Le's residence with Cao and indicated that the guns could be found in Cao's apartment. During Cao's arrest, deputies recovered a Mossberg shotgun stolen from the Greenside residence at his apartment. Do pleaded guilty to burglary in exchange for testifying against Cao, stating that they jointly committed burglaries at the Greenside and Riverwell residences. He testified that they drove his red Honda C.R.V. to the Riverwell burglary, and after the crimes, he brought the stolen items to Cao's apartment, including the shotgun from the Greenside burglary.

Cao argues that the evidence is insufficient to uphold his convictions for the burglaries, claiming the State did not adequately corroborate Do's testimony as required by Article 38.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State contends there is corroborating evidence linking Cao to both burglaries. Article 38.14 mandates that a conviction cannot solely rely on accomplice testimony unless corroborated by other evidence connecting the accused to the crime. This corroborative evidence must do more than merely indicate a crime occurred; it must link the accused to the offense.

In evaluating the corroboration, the court disregards the accomplice's testimony and assesses whether the remaining evidence connects the accused to the crime, without needing to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals does not apply the usual sufficiency standards to accomplice testimony reviews under Article 38.14, as this standard is set by legislation rather than constitutional principles.

Regarding the Greenside burglary, Victor Le testified that a specific Mossberg shotgun was stolen from his home, describing its unique features. The shotgun found in Cao's apartment was identified by Le as the one taken from his residence. Cao argues that since he shares the apartment with his wife, the presence of the shotgun does not imply his involvement in the burglary. Additionally, he points out that Do claimed he placed the shotgun in Cao's closet, which Cao believes undermines the corroborative value of the shotgun's recovery.

Recovery of a stolen shotgun in Cao's apartment serves as evidence connecting him to the Greenside burglary, though it alone does not prove guilt. Legal precedents (e.g., Herron v. State and Edwards v. State) establish that possession of stolen property and related corroborative evidence from witnesses can link a defendant to a crime. Specifically, Do testified that he and Cao accessed Le's safe in Cao's apartment and that he returned the shotgun to Cao's closet, which was corroborated by the deputy's recovery of the shotgun and Le's identification. Article 38.14 stipulates that non-accomplice evidence only needs to connect the defendant to the crime, not cover every element.

In contrast, evidence related to the Riverwell burglary, including testimonies about a red Honda C.R.V. seen near the crime scene, lacks a direct connection to Cao, as witnesses could not identify him with the vehicle. The State's argument that Cao's in-court statement linked him to the Riverwell burglary is undermined by prior witness testimonies regarding broken glass. Cao's interjection during translated testimony does not demonstrate independent knowledge of the burglary events, nor was it presented as evidence for the jury. The State's reliance on Knox v. State to argue that all evidence must be viewed favorably for the verdict is misplaced since Cao's statement was not formally introduced as evidence.

Cao's motion for acquittal was based on the assertion of insufficient corroborating evidence at the close of the evidence. During the court proceedings, neither Cao nor the State referenced a specific statement from the record as evidence, nor did they mention it in their closing arguments. The court concluded that Cao's statement alone, without corroborating non-accomplice evidence, did not establish a connection to the Riverwell burglary as required by Article 38.14. However, the court found that the State adequately corroborated the accomplice witness's testimony regarding the Greenside burglary, fulfilling the requirements of the accomplice witness rule. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in cause number 942823 while reversing and rendering an acquittal in cause number 961668. Both Cao's and the State's motions for rehearing were denied. The decision was authored by Justice Jane Bland and involved a panel including Justices Nuchia and Keyes.