*1 GRANGER, Feryl Appellant, John STATE
No. Appeals Banc.
En 1, 1980.
603 December, Molly Farrer intro- Pope, that in late and Ronald R. Logene L. Foster Land, appellant as a “contract” Sugar appellant. duced her to the appel- with man. Anderson then discussed Meitzen, Atty. and Win- William A. Dist. act whereby he would arrangement lant an Cochran, Atty., Rich- ston Asst. Crim. Dist. various blackmail in her collector Huttash, Atty., mond, Aus- State’s schemes; was to convince that tin, for the State. blackmail, by force or objects otherwise, demanded. money she at no maintained that Anderson also OPINION appellant for agreed to hire time ODOM, Judge. stated, how- the murder of her father. She Appellant capital was convicted ever, with during negotiations that special murder Steve Anderson. was the benefi- she did reveal she pellant, 37.071(b), required issues under Art. V.A.C. policy on ciary under a life insurance C.P., were jury were submitted to the and life of her father. Consequent- answered in the affirmative. January Anderson further ly, punishment was assessed at death. 2, 1978, apartment her appellant came to ground challenges first error to kill going that he was and informed her sufficiency the evidence to sustain her of five thousand her at a cost to capital Specifically, Anderson, appellant According to dollars. accomplice tes- contends that the to assist in Anderson was then stated that timony tending the essential ele- to show kill her and appellant would capital ment of murder remu- they bor- her son. Anderson testified neration, sufficiently was not corroborated. Darold Comeaux rowed a car from capital The conviction was for murder and Anderson gun. Appellant acquired a V.T.C.A., 19.03(a)(3), under Penal Code Sec. from Farrer and drove left her son with provides pertinent part: which Sugarland, through Beaumont Louisiana “A if he person commits an offense Anderson. the residence of Steve commits murder as defined under Section 3,1978, approx- at that on Code, 19.02(a)(1) of this and: m., her tied imately p. 6:00 auto seat of the placed her in the back
“(3) of her father person commits the murder for the residence and went inside stepmoth- remuner- remuneration or the him and her where he murdered ation ....” er. Anderson, ac- appellant’s 19,1978, acquired a On action, pri-
complice in this
was the State’s
against the insur-
loan
four thousand dollar
mary
previously
witness.
been
She had
testified that
of her father’s life. She
ance
convicted of the
murder of her fa-
accompanied appel-
evening she
later that
ther, Steve Anderson.1
Ander-
apartment.
to an
lant and Farrer
containing the
purse
placed
then
her
son
pur-
she had
Anderson testified
La-
in the bedroom.
four thousand
dollar double indem-
chased a five thousand
the mon-
evening when she checked
ter that
her
on the life of
nity
policy
insurance
billfold,
that three
discovered
ey in her
she
De-
late in
father. She also testified
then
missing. She
was
thousand dollars
heavily
was
in debt
cember 1977 she
that when she confronted
schemes to
stated
had concocted several blackmail
fact,
that he
with this
he stated
improve
financial condition.
stated
lant
her
She
conviction,
pend-
Anderson’s
action resulted
she had
stant
motion for new trial was
1. At the time Anderson testified
granted,
ing
she entered
court which tried the instant
before the
fifty years.
facing
plea
guilty
and was sentenced
was
action a motion for new trial and
dropped.
charge
charge.
murder
was
the in-
The other
After
upon
“A
murder of
conviction cannot be had
parents.
of an
corrob-
unless
tending to con-
orated
other evidence
wit-
presented
several other
nect
with
offense
com-
nesses. Darold Comeaux testified that he
mitted;
helped
loaned the
his auto
and the corroboration is not suf-
*3
2,
acquire
him
on
gun
a .25 caliber
if it
shows
merely
ficient
the commission
defense,
1978.
When called
the
Co-
of
offense.”
the
apparently
meaux testified that Anderson
for
supra,
stands
the
accompanied
willingly.
appellant
the
where,
proposition that
in a
for hire
Through
manager
Fetty,
no
an express
case there is
evidence of
Beaumont,
Howard
the
Johnson Motel in
of
promise
to
for the
showing
State introduced motel
records
through
the
ac
person, if
record reflects
signed
that Anderson had
for a room on
2,
complice
compensat
a
expected
defendant
to be
An employee
Pharmacy
of Gibson’s
in
murder,
a
may
ed for
act of
there
be
the
Beaumont testified
sold
Curi-
that she
some
of remu
competent showing of
element
ty
tape
appellant
adhesive
to the
on Janu-
3,
ary
employee
1978. Another Gibson’s
of
19.-
purpose
neration
Section
sold
a
that she
Anderson
03(a)(3).
McManus does not eliminate
box of .25 caliber ammunition on the same
requirement
an accom
of corroboration of
day. The
of a
station outside
owner
service
plice’s testimony regarding
element
Winnie, Texas,
he
tire to
sold a
for
in
of murder
hire.
remuneration
a case
appellant
January 3,1978.
employee
on
An
State, Tex.Cr.App., 579
of the service station testified that since the
486,
482,
specifically held that an
appellant’s car had a flat tire and was left
accomplice
as
witness must be corroborated
nearby
park,
at a
he
roadside
to
to
element which elevates murder
pellant
they
and Anderson to their car after
capital murder.
purchased the tire.
an
only
the case at
evidence of
bar
Joseph
pathol-
Dr.
a forensic
Jachimczyk,
expectation of
lies in the tes-
remuneration
ogist, testified that
removed three .25
he
timony
accomplice, Mary
Lou Ander-
body
caliber bullets from the
An-
Steve
although
son.
she never
She testified that
a
derson
that Steve Anderson died as
hire
promised
agreed
the gunshot
result of
wounds. He also stat-
lant for
informed
killing,
ed that the mouth and wrists of the victim
for
tape.
kill her
five
were bound with adhesive
her that he would
dollars;
killing, ap-
and after the
thousand
The essence of the
murder offense
pellant actually took three thousand
he
alleged against
this
is that
Farrer,
Molly
for the crime.
committed the
in the words of
indictment,
according
who
to Anderson introduced
“for
remuneration
and was
con-
as a “contract man”
remuneration.”
State
tends that
the record contains sufficient
appellant took
three thou-
present when
a
evidence
sustain
dollars,
testify.
sand
did not
murder since the
established an
evidence
evidence
contends
expectation
part
of remuneration
is
showing
expectation
an
remuneration
appellant, citing,
McManus v.
by non-accomplice
corroborated
Tex.Cr.App.,
Art. used in the murder.
3) signed for a motel room for herself and before the kill- BARTON, Appellant, Ross Eric ing. sufficiency of the corrob To test the murder case we are
oration in a The STATE of consideration constrained to eliminate from No. 58754. evidence of the then examine the of other witness evidence Appeals of any es with the view to ascertain if there be Panel No. 3. inculpatory evidence of incriminating character which tends to con
nect the defendant with the commission of
the offense as to that element which ele See,
vates the murder State, supra. If there is
such the corroboration is suffi
cient; otherwise, State, it is not. Carrillo S.W.2d non-accomplice drastically
the instant case falls short of
that held sufficient to corroborate the ele
ment of remuneration in McManus v.
supra.
testimony established that
had to two indicated witnesses that he ex
pected to “come into” some in Au (the
gust capital murder) month after the
and that the approached defendant had an
other non-accomplice inquiring witness finding
about a “hit man.” The defendant
told the latter witness that he wanted two
persons killed.
The corroborative facts which the State simply prove
adduced do not tend
the existence of the element of remunera-
tion, the element which elevates the offense likely is more than not. judgment is ordered reformed judgment acquittal
to show a capi as to parte Reynolds,
tal murder. Ex Tex. See
Cr.App.,
Appellant may,
however, be retried for the lesser included See, Harris, parte
offense of murder. Ex
Tex.Cr.App., 600
DOUGLAS, Judge, dissenting.
plus the circumstances in the case are suffi-
cient to show to do was hired killing.