Monterrubio v. State
916 S.W.2d 506
Tex. Crim. App.
1996
Check Treatment

*1 506

motive for rality opinion bias. are the in point Judge Such facts this on this of error. case. Keller we should contends that reconsider Gribble, the holding underlying in as to the

Accordingly, I dissent. felony, it because she believes is the law due only oversight subsequent to in cases which McCORMICK, P.J., joins. controlling authority. cited Gribble as “It is

evident” to “because the her that evidence subsequent was sufficient [in cases] these the simply omission in the to citation Gribble agree went unnoticed.” I not do with this assessment. The evidence in itself was Gribble held MONTERRUBIO, Appellant,

Sixto sufficient, corpus but of its discussion the go v. delicti rule not there did unnoticed. Judges Campbell Miller and concurred in the Texas, Appellee. The of STATE only point result specifically as to of error 1226-95. No. State, twelve. in Subsequently, Fisher v. 851 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), Judge S.W.2d 298 Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas. Campbell cited and followed Gribble as con 7, rule, trolling authority corpus Feb. 1996. on the delicti

identifying plurality a opinion. Gribble as Fisher, Judge 851 S.W.2d at 302-303. Miller joined opinion. year, this that Later same in State, (Tex.Crim. Chambers v. 866 S.W.2d 9 Miller, App.1993), Judge by authored Gribble again was controlling cited and followed as rule, authority corpus on the delicti this time Valle, Brownsville, appellant. Joe for specifically applied underlying as it to the Moore, Robert H. Asst. Atty., Dist. felony in capital a case. Gribble was not Huttash, A. Brownsville and Robert State’s plurality in opinion, denoted this ease as a Atty., Austin, State. for the Judge Campbell but Fisher was cited. joined later, opinion. this months in Several CONCURRING OPINION ON STATE’S State, (1994), Emery v. 702 881 S.W.2d Grib PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY again applying ble was followed in cited and REVIEW corpus underlying the delicti rule to the felo MALONEY, concurring. Judge, ny case, capital although in a it was not opinion. plurality Judges denoted as a Mil join I opinion majority, the of the but write Campbell joined opinion. ler and this respond Judge dissenting opin to to Keller’s argues in ion which she that this Court plurali- Given that rendered Gribble was a sponte plurality should sua reconsider the ty opinion question on issue in specific the State, holding in v. Gribble 808 S.W.2d 65 Judges due to of concurring the note Miller (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (plurality opinion as to agree Campbell, and I that the cannot issue twelve). point of error “simply by judges went unnoticed” these two Chambers, by in point Judge In of twelve Gribble held that a which was authored error Miller, Emery, shortly defendant’s must be and thereaf- confession corroborated decided joined by independent by Judge Judge evidence that a ter and Miller some crime and (the rule), corpus Campbell. improper Admittedly, was committed delicti and the cita- unnoticed, applied underlying appears rule to tions went it further this the but clear Judge felony capital plu- Judge Campbell in Gribble a that Miller a case. was and had

507 that it would proof, I believe requirement it of to have the issue and believed reconsidered merely citing Grib so rather than in have said properly been resolved Gribble. incorrectly.3 ble ON STATE’S OPINION DISSENTING may on its motion order own This Court PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY petition by a presented of an issue not review REVIEW Tex.R.App.P. discretionary review. for KELLER, Judge, dissenting. 200(a) the I that Court and 201. believe majority that the opinion1 The assumes the case and confront so in this should do proof corpus for the requires of delicti in holding law plurality of whether the issue felony underlying capital in a murder offense Be- law of this state. be the Gribble should me, apparent prosecution. fairly It to is to do majority a of this Court declines cause though, the instances in which this that time, respectfully I dissent. so at this require- a has held that there is such Court oversight. ment of an are the result J., MANSFIELD, joins. proposition The that the State must estab- corpus underlying

lish the delicti of the felo- capital

ny prosecution in a murder was first State, 65,

announced in Gribble v. S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), proposition

71 but that majority votes.

did not receive a of the dissented, judges judge

Three concurred one result, judges specifically

in two the and only” with the resolution of the PITTS, Appellant “concurred Charles William point involving corpus In of error delicti. v. words, proposition the other above received Texas, Appellee. The of STATE judges. approval only the of three by majority opinions this Court cite

Two No. 0658-95. proposition for the that the law re Gribble Texas, Appeals of of Court Criminal corpus of the un quires proof of the delicti En Banc. derlying felony, opinions of those but neither acknowledged plurality a that Gribble was 28, Feb. 1996. State, Emery v. opinion as to that issue. 881 702, (Tex.Crim.App.1994).2 705 S.W.2d (Tex. State, 9,15-16 v. 866 S.W.2d

Chambers

Crim.App.1993). Emery In both and Cham sufficient

bers we held that the evidence was corpus underly of the

to establish the delicti

ing felony. that It is evident to me because sufficient, in

the evidence was the omission simply went unnoticed.

the citation to Gribble a

Had the Court intended to establish new 1993), controlling authority as Appeals appellant's "followed Gribble reformed con- 1. The Court of rule, capital identifying as a corpus murder to a conviction for Gribble viction for the delicti on True, Fisher, finding the insufficient to murder after evidence non- plurality opinion.” as a but underlying corpus delicti of the case, establish the only general capital for the cited Gribble majority to felony. remands the cause the The rule, i.e., corpus that a defendant’s confes- delicti Appeals to reconsider that determina- Court of by independent evi- must be corroborated sion not here relevant. tion for reasons did Fisher a crime was committed. dence that proposition that is the for the not cite Gribble Emery submitted a correc- 2. The author of has i.e., debate, the subject present whether the of plu- was a would indicate that Gribble tion that felony underlying be corpus must delicti of the rality decision. capital case. in a murder established concurring says opinion this Court in that 3. The State, (Tex.Crim.App. 298 851 S.W.2d Fisher v.