Emanuel Lee Fonzie v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-08-00064-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 10, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Emanuel Fonzie's appeal of his capital murder conviction centers on his claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the State did not sufficiently corroborate the testimony of accomplice Jeremy Farr. The background details reveal that in fall 2000, Fonzie recruited Farr to kill Derrick Tolliver, Theresa Tolliver's estranged husband, in order for Theresa to collect $200,000 from his life insurance policy. Fonzie, Theresa, and Farr devised a plan, involving accessing Derrick's home under the pretext of retrieving clothes for Theresa’s children. On the day of the murder, Fonzie provided Farr with a gun, and after confirming that Derrick was home alone, Farr shot Derrick twice in the back of the head. Following the murder, Farr initially lied to authorities about his whereabouts and later returned to Arkansas. After months of discussions about the incident, Farr was arrested and ultimately agreed to testify against Fonzie in exchange for a sentence cap, leading to Fonzie's conviction in January 2008. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding Fonzie’s conviction and life sentence.

A challenge to the denial of a directed verdict is evaluated for legal sufficiency of evidence, considering it in favor of the verdict to see if a rational jury could establish the offense's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.14, a conviction based solely on an accomplice's testimony requires additional evidence to connect the defendant to the crime. While this corroborating evidence does not need to directly link the defendant to the offense, it must do more than merely indicate that a crime occurred. 

The process involves disregarding accomplice testimony to assess whether remaining evidence connects the defendant to the crime, which need not independently prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the appeal, Fonzie argues that the evidence merely confirms Farr's culpability without linking him to the murder. However, Farr's testimony indicates that Fonzie provided a handgun and participated in the murder plan, including entering the victim's home. 

Additionally, non-accomplice testimony corroborates that an offense occurred and that Fonzie was present. Key evidence includes gunshot residue found on Fonzie's vest, suggesting proximity to a discharged firearm, which, while not directly proving an agreement to commit murder, tends to link Fonzie to the offense. Proof of connection to a weapon used in the crime is deemed sufficient corroborative evidence.

Detective Charles Campbell testified about evidence found at the crime scene, including a flashlight, a metal baseball bat, and a knife sheath, which corroborated Farr's account of additional weapons discovered in Derrick’s house. Campbell also noted a partially opened window, a window screen in the grass, and two .380 caliber casings at the scene. Investigator Arturo Cervantes provided further evidence that a call from Emanuel Fonzie’s residence to Derrick’s house around 6:30 p.m. supported Farr’s testimony about Theresa’s call. Witnesses Jimmy Trammell and Stephanie Espinoza identified Theresa’s green Oldsmobile, with two African-American males, parked near Derrick's house shortly before the crime. Trammell observed the car parked unusually close to the house, while Espinoza recognized the vehicle and identified Fonzie as one of the men inside. Their testimonies, combined with evidence of gun residue on Fonzie's vest and the corroborating details from the CALLER ID, established sufficient non-accomplice evidence linking Fonzie to the crime as per TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.14. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, and Fonzie's appeal was overruled.