2015-09-30 Noblett Memorandum

Appellant, Jeffrey Sean Noblett, appeals his conviction for aggravated kidnapping and the resulting fifty-year sentence and $10,000 fine.1 On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s charge to the jury, and several of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. We will affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

On August 12, 2013, Amarillo Police Department Corporal Toby Hudson had just returned from vacation and was on his way to the department to pick up his work car and return to his official duties. En route, however, he witnessed something unusual at the intersection of Southwest Third Street and South Bryan Street: two men standing in the middle of the road facing each other with what appeared, at Hudson’s first glance, to be a pile of clothing and boxes. Noting that the scene struck him as “odd” and “out of place,” Hudson turned around and drove to the immediate area where he had seen the two men and the unidentified bundle. Once there, Hudson discovered that what he initially thought might have been a bundle of clothing was actually the body of a man, who was later identified as Lance Hooser. Hudson summoned both fellow police officers and emergency medical personnel and, while waiting for them to arrive, attempted to resuscitate Hooser, to no avail. Hooser, bearing signs of having been bound, strangled, beaten, and shot, had died.

Police discovered the synopsis of the story which led to Hooser being found dead in the road: a group of acquaintances in the methamphetamine trade became embroiled in internal hostilities and, ultimately, one man—Hooser—was killed. The ensuing investigation revealed the details of events and circumstances leading up to Hooser’s death. As it relates to this particular incident, the group included Hooser, Terry Young, Robert Melton, Ricky Burns, Bobby Crawford, Brittney Bralley, and appellant. Sometime around late July or early August 2013, Hooser had borrowed appellant’s pickup truck, apparently, to complete a methamphetamine deal in which he was supposed to sell some methamphetamine and keep some for appellant, Bralley, and Young. But Hooser refused to return the truck and, it seems, failed to complete the drug transaction as agreed. Only after a chase and some amount of police intervention did appellant regain possession of the truck. Clearly, hostilities had begun to brew within the group as a result of the soured transaction. In a recorded phone conversation with Young, appellant is heard to complain of Hooser and to express a desire to find out his whereabouts

Bralley, appellant’s girlfriend at the time, testified that she and appellant went to a house on South Tennessee Street shortly after having received a phone call from Melton, but she did not know why they were going there. While she stayed in the truck, appellant went up to the back door of the house and remained standing there. She saw some of the other men in the group—Melton and Young—very briefly and observed that they had their faces covered. Bralley testified that she paid little attention as to what appellant was doing and plucked her eyebrows as she waited in the truck. She did hear one scream as she sat in the truck. After about ten minutes or so, appellant and Bralley left in appellant’s truck and went to get gas. Though she testified that appellant told her nothing about the visit to the house, she was reminded as she sat on the witness stand that, in her initial statement to police, she had reorted that appellant told her that he heard Hooser scream from inside the house.

After appellant put gas in his truck, he and Bralley went to Young’s house, where, she testified, the two men spoke briefly in the alley as she once again waited in the truck. She did not hear any of the conversation but described Young’s facial expression as “shocked, like he had seen a ghost.”

Clay Rolan, the lead investigator, learned from appellant’s statement to him that Hooser was initially kidnapped at the house on Tennessee Street and that five men were there along with Hooser: Young, Crawford, Melton, Burns, and appellant. According to appellant’s statement, he arrived at the house knowing that the plan was to “rough up” Hooser, to scare him a little bit in retribution for having reneged on one or more of the drug deals arranged by the group. Appellant explained that he was tasked with standing by the car that had been backed up to the back porch with its hatchback open and making certain that no one was watching the goings-on at the house. While appellant performed those tasks standing by the back door, he heard Hooser yelling and heard that Hooser was being beaten. When someone in the group said that a stronger binding material was needed because the tape was proving inadequate, appellant retrieved red wire that was used to wrap around Hooser’s neck; he unsuccessfully attempted to cut the wire into pieces designed to wrap around Hooser’s wrists and ankles. Appellant also heard a declaration by one of Hooser’s assailants that they were going to “cut his balls off.”

Appellant admitted to having helped by holding or lifting Hooser’s shoulders as the other men were carrying the beaten Hooser to load him into the back of the car. The men continued to attack Hooser as he was in the back of the car. Young informed appellant that the men were going to take Hooser out to the country and scare him some more. Appellant responded, “Okay, I’m going to go.” Initially, Rolan understood appellant to mean that he was declaring his intent to discontinue his involvement in the matter but discovered that appellant was actually expressing his desire to join the group out in the country as it continued its assault on Hooser. Rolan learned that Young called appellant after the group left the house with Hooser and alerted appellant that the plans had changed and that everyone was meeting at Young’s house. Appellant, along with Bralley, then went over to Young’s house where the two talked in the alley. Appellant advised Young to burn the vehicle that had been used to transport Hooser.

From the record before us, we do not know the precise sequence of events after Hooser was taken from the house on Tennessee Street. We do know, however, that, at some point after Hooser was loaded into the car and sometime after appellant left to go get gas, presumably to follow the group out to the country, Hooser was fatally shot in the neck and the abdomen. The evidence suggests that it was Burns who actually shot Hooser and that Melton also played a significant role in the physical assault on Hooser. It seems apparent from the record that appellant was not present when Hooser was killed. Based on this evidence, the Potter County jury found appellant guilty of aggravated kidnapping and assessed punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. From this conviction, appellant has appealed.