Zamora v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this CaseAppellant Jamie Zamora and his brother Danny had a business selling cocaine and marijuana. His brother ran the business in Mexico, and appellant was in charge of distribution throughout the Houston area. Appellant received the assistance of salesmen in Houston who helped him distribute the drugs. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a trial court must, sua sponte, give an accomplice-witness instruction when the evidence raises the issue under the theory that the witness was a party as a co-conspirator. The Supreme Court answered that question affirmatively. Furthermore, the Court held that when the issue of a trial court's failure to give an accomplice-witness instruction is raised on appeal, a court of appeals should first determine whether a trial court erred by failing to sua sponte give that instruction before it considers whether a defendant preserved his complaint for appeal, a matter that is pertinent to a harm analysis. Because it failed to address the question of charge error in the first instance, the Court held that the appellate court erred by determining that appellant forfeited his jury-charge complaint by failing to request an accomplice-witness instruction that was based specifically on a co-conspirator theory of party liability. This case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.