Thomas v. State

The trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to essentially ask whether any prospective juror would automatically conclude that a defendant should not be prosecuted if the facts established that he merely assisted another person in the commission of a crime.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Bobby Gene Thomas was convicted, as a party to the crimes, for malice murder and other offenses arising out of a convenience store armed robbery.1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the convictions.

1. We first address appellant’s assertion that insufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a party to the crimes committed by his accomplice, Earl Randolph Scott. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, the surveillance camera videos at the convenience store that was robbed show appellant, who was identified at trial in these videos by his clothing, entered the store just minutes before a person identified as Scott entered. Both were wearing dark hooded jackets, and on the video appellant is distinguishable from Scott because appellant’s slacks appear to be black and his jacket, while dark, is lighter in color than his slacks, whereas Scott’s jacket and slacks both appear to be black. Another distinguishing characteristic is that Scott’s light-colored shirttail is shown hanging below the bottom of his jacket. The two stood at the lottery ticket desk for several minutes looking around the store. Both of them appeared to be wearing a white glove or carrying a white cloth wrapped around one hand. Scott exited the store and walked to the corner of the building. One of the outside cameras shows a hand that appears to be covered in something white being stuck out of the door for a moment, at which point Scott walked back and re-entered the store. From a contemporaneous video recording taken by an inside camera, appellant was identified as the person apparently signaling at the door. A short time later they both exited the store and walked away, one after the other.

Thomas v. State

The trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to essentially ask whether any prospective juror would automatically conclude that a defendant should not be prosecuted if the facts established that he merely assisted another person in the commission of a crime.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report