*1 away. is Perry, also There evidence from witness and were Goal- pied by Strauss Thus, that he distributed football the exhibits themselves Scott cards for cards. post Kay part Perry Houston and turned over and and Strauss show proceeds Kay. cards therefrom to He use the identical went taking for were Kwik-Copy to the Shop his tickets Goalpost. named Kay 7 and he on October took those conspirators com- shown it was Also placed cards and bets on home them and at telephone other with each municated Kay’s part turned of the money over these distribution of to the pertinent times Kay. cards. While we have not undertaken to detail sufficient evidence is Circumstantial evidence, upon the entire we find a careful Conspir Tex.Jur.2d, conspiracy. 12 prove it is review of the same that sufficient to 2d, 7; Branch’s and § notes 6 acy, at § support jury. the verdict of State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 2896; Roberts v. Appellant’s ground third Tex.Cr. 303; v. error is Nisbet overruled. v. Price R. 336 S.W.2d Tex.Cr.App., Caldarera 410 S.W.2d Finding no reversible error in the 485. 53 S.W.2d 122 Tex.Cr.R. record, judgment is affirmed. case, several Here, in the Caldarera working Opinion together approved people the Court. made operation. The claim is illegal in the instant case
both Caldarera ODOM, J., participating. not prove not sufficient evidence there was Here, agreement. as Caldar- positive is era, in concert is shown the action conspiracy the offense Here
sufficient. bookmaking by the distribution
to commit betting cards for use pushing football Caldarera, supra, it In games. football bootlegging. Appellant, REYNOLDS, Edith In Marks 690, 693, pointed out Texas, Appellee. The STATE show, and it did that the circumstances not No. 44841. show, per- necessary to actually charged together came sons Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal conspiracy have de- in terms to agreed May 3, 1972. pursue It signed and common means. pursued they to show that is sufficient Rehearing Denied Nov. means, by the objects, often one same same Rehearing Feb. Second Denied performing one another different same, complete so as to it with part of the to the attainment the same ob-
a view
ject. posi- at
Clearly the case bar there was men, Kay, these
tive evidence that three Strauss, came
Perry together separate Shop on two occasions
Kwik-Copy togeth- for two or worked three hours preparing having printed
er football up they
cards then divided and took
«67
868 Santos, Dr. Ruben C. Chief Bexar Examiner, performed County Medical autopsy Reynolds R. report autopsy 1969. The December *3 signed by and Dr. Santos introduced into evidence, relates death resulted from multiple injuries (blows “. . . head force) caused blunt instrument with multiple depressed of the fractures Rio, appel- Gonzales, C. Del Arturo skull, prob- injury injury, brain and throat lant. ably strangulation.” due to manual Dr. Brackettville, Pettit, Atty., F. Dist. John report that the Santos also concluded in his Vollers, Rob- Atty., and State’s D. Jim likely the 4th death “more occurred about Austin, Huttash, Atty., Asst. ert State’s A. December, day of Sth 1969.” for the State. sergeant in the was a The deceased Air Force. On November United States OPINION 26, 1969, board a he had been scheduled to plane Base for Laughlin at Air Force ODOM, Judge. had miss- duty new station Vietnam. He from a conviction appeal is taken This had flight, the Air Force im- ed this punish- The of murder. offense for the mediately Rio Police De- notified Del at life im- ment was assessed partment missing. that he was Included prisonment. persons descrip- missing report was a automobile, Sergeant Reynolds’ tion a of sufficiency of challenges the Appellant Impala bearing Texas blue 1968 Chevrolet the conviction. support the evidence license number HRN 264. is based case state’s argues She accomplice wit- testimony of an upon the day, Bir- Tom On that same Officer not corroborated. ness whose Department, of the Del Rio Police trong, Sandoval, 9, 1969, an dispatcher that December from his a On received a call Joe Depart- Highway presumed Texas employee of the under the abandoned vehicle ment, Farm Road mowing grass beside Felipe Highway Bridge Creek San point two miles report a Birtrong investigated at Officer Brackettville, discov- when he stuck in southwest and found a blue 1968 Chevrolet male. a deceased adult a body bridge. He ran check ered the mud under extent decomposed to the body registration of such vehicle and had on the made, and appellant’s registered identification was it that an that was near papers were found no identification name. body. a of December night On the Texas were at office of meeting
Local law enforcement authorities was held notified, to dis- immediately was re- Del Rio Grady Sessums in Ranger Rio, autopsy at investigation. where an attendance moved Del cuss the In Sessums, Mercer, Rang- fingerprint meeting Ranger ex- a conducted. Jack Woods, Safety, Kinney pert Department Sergeant of Public er with the John finger- meeting Sheedy. County A. was also contacted. Mercer took Sheriff J. prints copy to the Federal was held identification and sent one that a Washington, body, learned at that time Investigation and was Bureau taken had rings been fingerprints established watch two D.C. These belong to the body might possibly from the Rey- R. identity the deceased identification nolds, deceased. This tentative appellant. husband step-father.3 her written coupled Air Force death In these items with the having report Ranger missing persons led statement she accused Sessums appellant. deceased. to call on murdered the hospital at Appellant was this time appellant’s was con- A trailer search of Base, Air where Laughlin Force Numerous ducted on December apparent admitted for an over- seized, whiskey bot- including items were pills in to commit dose of hammer, table, tles, steel bedside appel- Ranger located suicide.1 Sessums speci- hair fragment, bone hospital, December lant in the and on bedsheet, walls, ceil- mens there to her. At the went talk with ing, and The automobile4 was the floor. appellant, *4 time this first discussion with searched, dis- more blood stains were and suspicion. no identified she under She was Samples of stains covered. blood these type the rings the being watch and as Department the of Pub- were forwarded to if by was asked owned her husband. She laboratory. Analysis of these Safety lic permission the give she her for offi- would type stains that these revealed residence, a mobile trail- her cers to check A, de- the blood matched er, her husband so fingerprints of to obtain ceased. prints the with they that could checked 1970, 3, August appellant’s to On giv- body. Permission was taken from trial, Beryl im- granted Linda Smith was en, shaving lotion and officers retrieved munity. at trial appellant’s testified She hair from bath- bottles and a oil bottle court, and was declared purpose finger- for room cabinet charge jury, to to the be an comparisons. print tests witness as a matter of law. 11, 1969, December Sessums On Beryl Smith’s reveals hospital. again appellant visited at the She appellant that she with living was and the body had been was told that her husband’s At deceased November 1969. 10:30 given was her “statu identified. also She evening, P.M. on that she returned home having tory warning” at After this time.2 asleep in from date and saw deceased rights, of her she was asked warned appellant lying bedroom if search of she would consent to another living in room. couch talked She again ap more trailer for clues. Once appellant her “had some- who told that she pellant her consented to search of trail- body flying get in R.5 to rid J. also to a search of consented erhouse. She alleged get . rid of him.” The kill- her automobile. er, Goode, flying a man was named Monte appellant’s On December night that was to arrive scheduled Smith, Beryl came to the daughter, Linda in Del tes- Rio at 2:00 A.M. The witness Department Safety of Public Office and these surprised tified that she was not concerning the mother, appellant volunteered information her since statements Rose, present during 1. Thomas who was 3. bad talked with Linda Sessums appellant attempt and taken At who had that same afternoon. Smith earlier hospital, appellant to the that testified told that the last time she had him attempting him she was to commit told was time she had seen deceased given daughter night suicide because her 10:30 P.M. on the away. baby evening, oc- her The suicide Later that same November 25. on December curred 1969. and made she contacted Sessums above statement. mentioned warning required prior 2. A is not to a request However, for consent search. reflects that this automobile 4. record giving warning such circum- stuck was same as one found good practice. police stances Cf. on November mud DeVoyle Tex.Cr.App., known “J.R.” 5. The 2d Eagle one from Brackettville Pass. making statements like had been always Further the statement questioning elicited years four and since she was about that she had her hus- rid her husband killed talking getting about heavily.” money band for insurance “drinking she real when get $10,000.00 for his drinking heavily Monte Goode was Appellant having been “half-way part be- in the crime. The daughter car aban- evening, half-way bogged doned when “. . .it down be- didn’t.” lieved her and washing cause she was the trunk of the car Novem- approximately 2:30 A.M. on At out, and she said she threw blanket awakened Witness Smith ber creek, hammer, and the and the tele- “cough- upon hearing the deceased make phone she it out in threw the weeds beside choking sound.” ing, gagging, the creek . . . .”6 The witness was what got bed out of to ascertain When warned incident to any- not mention the told back wrong, appellant her one. later she minutes A few room. daughter proceeded Mother appeared who then again appellant, saw apartment. clean the Appellant changed heard the and “real scared.” sober She and, open the sheets on the bed deceased’s door the trailerhouse back *5 window, sprayed appellant, the spray bedside table with silver looking out a observed paja- paint Beryl to blood Linda orange plaid coat and cover stains. dressed an mas, man, clearly scrubbed the to she could not Smith bathroom remove and a who disposed appellant’s blood stains and of see, place a blanket-covered keys. pair re- She testified that family car. The these actions were trunk the performed in to period a and order conceal the to trailer for brief crime turned the the and aid driving away in car. her mother. She also took again, left the or- then that, coat, ange plaid as the which her as soon mother had witness stated The worn, the to she into de- the cleaners.7 She left couple went instruc- departed, had tions trail to remove the bloodstains on the There she coat bedroom. ceased’s placed and to the bath- it in her name. leading from bed mother’s The question belonged daughter bathtub. coat and a of blood in the to puddle room seen, (Linda Smith). Beryl nowhere to be The deceased was telephone was in the deceased’s bedroom further that she Witness Smith testified bed was miss- gone, the blanket story did not tell the of the murder before room and ing. then returned to her She help did she she because wanted to her sleep. back went to that, she mother because feared if she it, and kill A.M., told Goode would return her. the witness
At
6:00
granted
that she
awakened,
ap-
She admitted
again
this time
was
immunity
prosecution.
pants
appellant’s
She stated
pellant’s return.
wet,
previously
that she had
told
Slaven
pajamas
she had crawled
June
attempt
and that she and
daughter
an
about
incident
Slaven
bed
her
into
with
country
had
on December
her if
driven out to
go
sleep.
to
asked
to
Witness Smith
body.
deceased,
They
not
appel-
to look for the
did
find
she had drowned
she did
it. She further
testified that
response
killed him
lant’s
was that she had
secondary
benefi-
realize that she was
Upon being
asked where
hammer.
policy un-
placed
body,
ciary of the deceased’s insurance
response
had
they
given
in-
they
dumped
side
til after she had
the statement
“that
had
him on the
road,”
question being
criminating
her mother.
the road
apparently
taken
the cleaners on
never
re-
7. The coat was
6. These items were
covered. The hammer
December
introduced
never
state was
the trailer and
seized
connected to the crime.
1968, appellant
$10,000.00
operated
that she
had offered him
testified
Slaven
June
“get
Lounge
payment
in Del
and to
rid of
Fisherman’s
Rio
her old man.”
appellant
money.
that
for her
was to come out of her insurance
had worked
on occa-
inquired
sion
He stated
thereafter she
to November
She stat-
that
1969, appel-
ed that
him “a
whether or not
during the summer of
number
times”
going
her.
job
lant
bar
he was
Ac-
night
“was drunk
one
to do
cording Mendez,
appeared
agitating
fight,
appellant
she was
kinda
and so I
picked
up
proposition.
be serious
her
and took her out to the
about the
Mendez
appellant
unhappy
had
when
house.”
that
had told
dated
stated
She
longer.
night
any
her
she refused to
him
going
that
that she was
see
Appellant
rid of her husband.
told Slaven
stated,
charged
court
As heretofore
“split
that she would
the insurance” with
Beryl
that
Linda
Smith
help
her if she
kill the
would
deceased.
as a matter
law.
witness
Beryl
The witness also testified that Linda
charge
proper.
agree that such
We
way
Smith
her about the
had told
in which
they
met his
had
death
had
unsuccessful
made an
to find
accessory
A
is an
witness who
body.
person
is an
wit
accused
State, Tex.Cr.App.,
g.e.
ness.
Williams
cross-examination,
On
she
admitted
160 Tex.
Jones
lawyer
previously
she had
told another
Cr.R.
Howard v.
anything
she did
about
not know
the case.
117 Tex.Cr.R. v. State, case, 77 Tex.Cr.R. as in the instant a witness has volun- 975. concealing tarily aided the accused In the instant case the corroborative evi- witness; crime, he is an (1) body appel- dence shows: that the g.e. must be corroborated.10 lant’s husband found on December State, State, supra; su- Turner v. v. Jones 1969; (2) was found beside pra; supra. Howard v. a farm which connects road Brackettville Rio; with Del (3) that cause of death determining suf test for The strangulation was either manual or head ficiency such corroboration is to elimi beating wounds inflicted a severe accomplice from nate the evidence of the instrument; that (4) blunt death oc- then ascertain wheth consideration and 1969;11 December curred on or about incriminat er there is other evidence of an blood; type A (5) deceased had (6) ac ing nature which tends to connect the ap- A blood stains were found offense, cused with the commission pellant’s trunk of home and the fam- State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 g. Colunga S. e. car; that, ily spring of 1968 and (7) State, Tex.Cr. (1972); W.2d 866 Cherb v. had, 1969, appellant in the summer of 273; App., 472 S.W.2d Thomas v. intoxicated, while stated that she desired to 166 Tex.Cr.R. Wel S.W.2d kill her and had husband asked Slav- June Tex.App. den The mere en and for their Mendez assistance Jesse showing occurred an offense plan; carrying (8) out this that the de- Colunga not sufficient corroboration. insured; heavily (9) ceased State, supra; State, Tex.Cr.App., Odom v. family car was discovered stuck in the mud Edwards v. Tex. S.W.2d that, Creek; Felipe (10) beside San Thus, Cr.App., 427 prior police, going to the which verifies extraneous matters without prior witness had consistent state- made tending to connect the accused to the crime concerning ment to a friend the death of is insufficient. step-father. corroborative need consistent statement directly link the accused the crime *7 made Linda Smith Slaven June or be sufficient in itself to establish his determining the cannot be considered Otherwise, guilt. testimony the ac sufficiency a state of the evidence. Such complice would be valueless. The corrobo hearsay ment is and is therefore without if rative evidence is sufficient it tends value, probative even if admitted without crime, it connect the accused with the State, supra. More objection. Cherb v. weight is such the cumulative of evidence over, by this was made the ac statement supplies g. Colunga v. which the test. e. 38.14, witness, supra, complice and Article State, State, supra; supra; Ro Cherb accomplice testimony cor requires that State, Tex.Cr.App., gers v. roborated other evidence. 399; Tex.Cr.App. Dalrymple v. 366 remaining The corroborative evi Hill 134 S.W.2d crime, dence shows the commission of the Banks v. S.W.2d Ann.O.O.P., pro- 38.14, are two that there Vernon’s 11. It should be noted 10. Article possible ease. in the instant dates death of vides : report upon autopsy that death the concludes cannot be had The “A conviction accomplice likely testimony 4th 5th the unless cor- occurred on of an most tending accomplice witness The to con- December. roborated other evidence early that death occurred with the offense com- testified nect the defendant 26, approxi morning ; is not suf- hours of November mitted and the corroboration mately days merely earlier. the commission nine ficient if it shows of the offense.” possible appellant lighter father, a D. belonging motive for to have the crime, Brown, Among the were also found. the committed threats J. appellant Apart bloody bearing items towel the commit such crime. was wet first testimony from the initial of defendant’s last name wit- ness, Smith, army digits Linda is no and the last four serial there evi- number. Blood found the trousers that dence which the de- on demonstrates that day Dolphus Brown ceased met on wore before his death November 26. autopsy report places bodies found contained same The the date of being days as that of his No was death as nine lat- mother. motive approximately shown, except Dolphus Omitting owed er. Brown accom- plice, money, perhaps small amount he there is no evidence which shows money poker game. wanted for a There connection anything did except was some uneaten food on table of with the crime make drunken home when bodies were found threats six months year indicated that their killer known and half earlier. Dolphus them. There was evidence that Despite thorough investigation which Brown had been the home afternoon case, is evidence conducted found. de- before the bodies were insufficient corroborate and a fendant had somewhere between $55 witness. poker game when he entered a $100 sufficient, night. held This evidence was judgment and the cause reversed court, support by a the con- unanimous remanded. viction. case, Reynolds and present In Edith FOR REHEARING
ON APPLICATION Smith, daughter, lived Rehearing denied. deceased, Reynolds, in a trailer home. found there had been The officers trailer play foul in the bedroom DOUGLAS, (dissenting State’s Judge blood, Type home. A human the same rehearing). motion for hair Reynolds, found. Human ceiling. A found on the blood were In the recent case of Brown spots Type A table which contained evidence this Court held the bone repainted. Human support upon sufficient the conviction fragments in the bedroom. were found evidence, circumstantial where no accom- plice Excluding witness the ac- testified. name of registered An automobile case, present complice testimony in the distance Reynolds found some Edith is, my opinion, stronger much aby *8 in stuck mud trailer home case, supra. in than the Brown in trunk jack automobile creek. The Type A human blood. of the car contained case, Brown, Dolphus In Jack been Apparently there had defendant, near lived in the same house was found blood. Hair remove this parents. brutally Shallowater with his pos- not This was bumper car. rear parents in bodies found beaten were Reynolds’ hair itively as identified James Appellant’s shirt with the home. brown but was similar it. tiny spots on it in a two blood was found hamper where clothes near bedroom in embedded fragments found Bone recepta- the bodies In a trash were found. to those similar were of the deceased brain Lubbock, an park cle in a near em- State trailer. of the the bedroom found in clothes, bedspread, bloody ployee found pair asked Slaven trousers, Reynolds Edith bloody and wet towels June stated Reynolds and cigarette help drown card washcloths. A credit and a they that he not and that could by person, could swim have been committed another get him in a water. hypothesis boat then into the but the intended is a reason Reynolds nolds life to make She stated that Jesse policies. insurance. asked him several times Mendez testified that $10,000 by killing was the It primary beneficiary wanted to shown her husband. if Edith that Edith he wanted collect his Rey- in Tex.Cr.R. able one consistent with the circum mitted stances and facts sition that State, Porch v. harmony Tex. State, another the act [579] with the evidence. Shultz v. 401; 50 Tex.Cr.R. proved, person may Hamlin have been com 47 S.W. must and the State, suppo 99 S. out W. 102.’” homicide, Reynolds After Edith at- could, tempted this the suicide. From Under the recently approved above test did, possibly draw conclusion that by this considering without showing guilt. this was a circumstance accomplice testimony, appears circumstantial stronger evidence is much present case the motive was In the than in witnesses, and is proved Brown case sufficient to non-accomplice two support the conviction. She want- Slaven Mendez. June Jesse ed her husband dead and wanted the insur- However, pointed original out in the money. type the de- ance Blood of the opinion there is more than circumstantial in the trailer home. ceased was found evidence. We have the evidence of the Fragments of bones were found in the bed- daughter appellant, of the Linda Smith. Attempts had made to remove room. She Reynolds testified that Edith had stat- spots. the blood The same ed on several that she occasions wanted to Reynolds’ in as was was found Edith car kill the deceased. Even after he had upon in her bedroom and her re- agreed to let her a divorce. painted type of bone table. The same fragments found embedded Linda Smith testified that she heard loud brain of the deceased as those found noises in the night trailer house the bedroom. homicide. She then saw the back aof man whom she was unable to case, supra, opinion In the Brown recognize load the the trunk correctly stated: appellant’s car and then leave. State, “In [442 Jones discussing Without all of the incriminat- supra, this stated: court 702] ing it, time, my opinion, evidence at every fact necessary ‘It is not corroborates the witness Linda independently directly point support Smith and sufficient the con- enough if the guilt of a defendant. It is viction. It stronger is much than the cor- by com- guilt is warranted roborating very conclusion evidence in the recent case force of all incrim- Tex.Cr.App., bined and cumulative of Runkle v. 484 S.W. inating Parish v. 2d circumstances. In that case of James Key Finch v. seen railroad brakeman at 528.’ 89 Tex.Cr.R. p. near a railroad 9:30 m. Spofford. track some seven miles from “Further, Taylor 87 Tex. *9 body was not there some five hours 615, it was 611 at Cr.R. Apparently body earlier. stated: wrapped plastic in a had been material passing Nearby, thrown from a of- train. ‘The rules of circumstantial pair eyeglasses ficers found a broken circumstances require that do not bloody and a near the certainty actually ex- wine bottle. Also to a moral should may body bloody bloody act and other items paper every hypothesis clude though it in- Brown case and even found some letters were found. Officers Jack facts, of the same well Key. to a volves some addressed A. James attorney on prepared brief of the district stopped a and searched west Officers adopted rehearing is the State’s motion morning bound train at 3:30 a. m. the next this, dissenting part opinion:1 as a they found Del Rio. In a boxcar Run- kle, defendant, “This Honorable erred revers- Franks ing of the trial court in judgment arrested in another box- them. Two men non- there was in the Statement of Facts car were but were later released. arrested connect accomplice testimony tending to They receipt bearing also found Runkle’s a name, pocket knife, piece of blood- offense. accused cardboard, pieces stained of a broken wine accomplice is “If the spots bottle Human blood and other items. record, de- are deleted from facts left found in the boxcar it was were after non-accomplice testimony as veloped from typed. The blood was not Valentine. follows: rope found on a around Human blood was body Key. the neck of the The accused and the deceased “1. living together in a as husband wife indicted His Franks was with Runkle. trailer house. as a case was dismissed and he was called he, for the witness He testified State. obviously play There was foul “2. Key Runkle and boxcar in boarded the San in that the bedroom of the house trailer all Antonio after three of them frag- human A blood and human bone drinking heavily. to wine Franks went ments were found there. fight sleep but later awakened Key. registered Franks then between Runkle and “3. The automobile in the put rope around sus- Key held while Runkle name of accused was found under Key’s began him. picious neck and to choke stuck in the mud circumstances sleep that he went the automo- Franks testified a creek. There was blood on ap- in- again, jack awoke he was and it and when he in the trunk of the car bile Key attempt formed that peared was dead. When there had been an wrap stopped, helped blood, Runkle human train Franks which was also remove this place plastic blood, type material and then A. it threw vari- by the tracks. The two then suicide The accused made a “4. the train. ous items off explained that she did this because but The trial court instructed the placed for going grandchild and his Franks was an witness this another adoption. contend that We testimony had to be corroborated. it should suspicious and that circumstance flight similarly be viewed majority appeal, Court, in a On is a a crime and circumstance scene of opinion, of Franks held that the tending guilt. to show sufficiently corroborated. body of the deceased was “5. case, appears Again, present in the appeared that the deceased found and it accom- that the evidence corroborate blunt in- to death with a had been beaten stronger than plice is much witness Smith proven to His blood was strument. in Runkle’s case. found to the blood Type A and similar fragments were trailer; and bone though in the some of facts Even similar in the brain compar- found imbedded present out in case have been set the trailer. bedroom of Dolphus those ing the circumstances with parts page are omitted. as formal in the record as well numbers References *10 876 conviction the de- cannot stand. We do not Prior threats the life of
“6. contention; agree to this proven. These all crimes have by the accused ceased in them different issues different el- by the accused to were shown to efforts someone, proven required insur- ements that to be are with the deceased’s hire order to sustain a conviction. The stat- proceeds, to kill the deceased. ance general accomplice ute is must developed the deceased “7. It was testimony, by tend- be corroborated other $55,000.00 insur- in life to defendant with the ing connect primary was the ance and accused commission the offense. statute policies. beneficiary of the say testimony does not this shall what of. If other than consist “In the case Nash v. Tex. State [61 make should out (Cr.Crim.App. 259], 134 709 Cr.R. S.W. offense, complete not be neces- it would discussed the the Court defined and 1911) sary testimony. accomplice’s to use the “tending” page as 719: follows word provides that wisely Hence the law “ to connect the corroboration must tend extend, stretch, direct one’s ‘To defendant with the commission of end, course; any to be directed as to ob- every con- offense, require aim; purpose, give or ject or to have offense, as stituent element of the sworn Therefore, leaning. gather we would by accomplice, be corrobo- must circum- this article that if the rated, requiring state would be toward, toward, stances lean or tend ’ impossibility.” as the committed party defendant who offense, truth of the and showed the every require To element of the constituent this all the law re- prosecutrix, would be is offense of murder corroborated quired.’ clearly not the law. case, “In the Nash was a which seduc- spoke “This Honorable further required tion case law question Rogers ([122 this v. State pros- corroboration of the 1010 Tex.Crim. Tex.Cr.R. 331] witness, only ecuting female corrobor- opin App.1932). Judge gave Morrow ating developed evidence was that ion. He stated follows: prosecuting witness gave later birth child and that she seen in the “ ‘The there law declares that must be company of at social the accused functions. corroborating tending to con- This was held sufficient the Court. nect the the offense defendant with com- part ju- case has been a Nash mitted, and suf- the corroboration risprudence sixty-one years. of Texas for merely ficient if it the commission show Honor- many It cited times this has been Article C.C.P. 1925. offense. original holding able Court and the Court’s first This statute was in the Code of bar is with Nash in the case at inconsistent state, adopted in Criminal this Procedure require in that seem to Court would adoption since its it has remained every of the offense of constituent element (It today unchanged. the same remains as sworn to murder Ann.C.C.P.]). Art. 38.14 Vernon's [see referring to Nash Again be corroborated. case, Speaking of it in the fol- a recent 719): (p. re- lowing language used: “In the ports has been defined opinion the word ‘tend’ ‘The writer of this leaning’ (Chandler Tex.Cr.R. have a
case of Williams v. ‘to State [59 347], [1120] uses this 318); ‘serve, degree in some language: “It is insisted before this contribute or conduce that, less bear- way’, was no evi- or ‘have a more or direct because there court point, upon ing (Boone or effect’ Tex. corroborating her dence
877 374, 580, 584); ‘to di six times and cross-exam- be while sober. On Cr.R. 235 S.W. end, exactly any object, purpose’ ination when Mendez asked as to or rected 259, State, 134 S. the accused had to him re- (Nash v. 61 Tex.Cr.R. what said husband, Dictionary, gard to felt her 709); and in how she about W. Webster’s said, she T to see is ‘To be want the son-of-a-bitch the word ‘tend’ thus defined: or dead.’ tendency, or conscious directed have
unconscious,
end,
any
object
pur
or
outcry
“The accused claims that
State,
pose’.”
(Tex.Cr.App.
v.
Shrader
disap-
made to
authorities
about
607,
51
Tex.Cr.R.
623]
[121
pearance of her
outcry
husband. The
also,
State,
609).
v.
108
See
Minor
report-
she
was made does not reflect that
require
Tex.Cr.R.
trailer house which the ently attempted ' did not feel that sui- wife, that the wit- ing as husband cide of the accused was because she was ness, Meritt, Wayne testified that there despondent grand-daughter’s over in the bedroom fragments were bone found being placed adoption. for That ob- Type A human blood was of the trailer. viously viewed the as one suicide Type on the of the bedroom. found walls generally flight views from a crime scene ta- A human blood was found on bedside suspicious conduct accused. other obviously sprayed with ble which had been paint to cover the blood stains. An addi- Cawley ([166 v. State the case of “In fragment bone in the bed- tional was found Tex.Crim 310 S.W.2d Tex.Cr.R. 37] Type A blood it. room with human on Judge by the late opinion App.1957), the Further, type A human blood was found held that: Woodley, it was car the automobile trunk of the jack can cor witness ‘An appeared parties jack it Pope v. by circumstances. roborated rubbed, obviously to remove 590; Tex.Cr.R. stains. 279, 180 S. Tex.Cr.R. Tyler v. think also fair state that “We State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. v. Reed W. fragments similarity bone between State, 129 White 40 S.W.2d Dr. brain the deceased 465; Langford 84 S.W.2d accused, and in the Santos bedroom of 121 Tex.Cr.R. A the fact has flight long unexplained, When fact blood is of the human corroborative aof consciousness indicative deemed the deceased met his death at man flee when no “The wicked guilt. ac- place living where with the he Evi .” Proverbs 28:1. . . pursueth cused. is where one flight admissible is dence of the ground, offense, with an charged further contend that witness “We ii some substance, than drunk- Mendez established more Jesse quasi ad ato effect and amounts guilt, part en threats on the of the accused. She charged. offense guilt $10,000.00 mission if him he wanted to make asked 255, 125 58 Tex.Cr.R. in- killing paid Damron her husband to be attempts Escape, flight and Mendez, proceeds. According surance as evi- always admissible escape are him more than proposition made this *12 accused, guilt. flight dence of such as Wilderson after the crime [Wilkerson] State, 388, 1108, committed, 131 60 . Tex.Cr.R. S.W. . . Proof that ac- cused was at or near the scene of the 1111.’ crime about the time of its commis- “Certainly jury as far as the was con- sion is admissible in corroboration of the witness, accomplice cerned the testimony accomplice, may of the by following Smith corroborated tend to connect accused with the com- circumstances: crime, mission of the so as to furnish sufficient support corroboration fragments “1. in the Gore bone coupled conviction when with suspicious bedroom of the trailer the accused where circumstances, being such as together and the deceased were as living company accomplice, of wife; frag- husband and similar bone flight . subsequent . .” ments embedded in brain of the de- (Emphasis supplied). ceased. “ ‘The case of Knox v. 106 Gore,
“2. the removal of which had 1111, appears to Tex.Cr.R. attempted jack from the automobile support holding. our See also Nichols family of the car the accused and the pf 238 Tex.Cr.R. deceased. 235, where said we that evidence many “3. Statements made occasions flight tending show was relevant by the accused both drunk and sober that discrediting developed incidents dead, she wanted the deceased that he had flight “ap- proof connection with of insurance, proceeds of which would be peared gestae flight but res paid to her pay and that she would wit- corroborative $10,000.00 to ‘see the son-of-a-bitch dead.’ ness” ’. “4. shortly That after the death of the position “It is our that the corroborative deceased, attempted accused suicide. circumstantial in and of itself jury, jury who sat in the box for this case would to a entitle State during passed upon week this trial and it, jury question guilt. By on the there credibility by of the witnesses testified who (the is established a insurance mon- motive observing face, them accept face to did not ey), prior feelings malicious for the de- story as true the accused that she accused, ceased and evidence of attempted suicide her grand-daugh- because homocide in the the home bedroom going adopted ter was to be by someone accused where the lived with the else. suspicious as his There is conduct wife. by the the fact in that accused after “Certainly jury must have viewed blood, attempted suicide strongly the suicide at least as deceased, matched the of the flight. found in her car. Cawley: “Again quoting from “The case of [167 Washburn State -following quotations ‘The 125], 2d S.W.2d [318 812, pp. Criminal 1404 and Law § C.J.S. very sim- 627], Tex.Crim.App.1958 is a case appear cited us to weight ilar the case at bar. support announce a correct rule and great as circumstantial evidence is not as State’s contention that the evidence is this case case af- and the Washburn sufficient corroborate the firmed by this Honorable Court. of the witness: “Sufficient corroboration of ac- appears of an “It proper test is wheth- complice may to warrant a be er conviction there are circumstances from which suspicious furnished conduct ac- reasonable could infer granted, should Rehearing cused is connected the commission Motion the offense. Runkle v. [484] original opinion in this cause withdrawn, #44,984, judg- and that Tex.Crim.App., should [912,] Cause June the trial should regarding the ment of be affirmed. 1972. The circumstances relationship parties “This case should be affirmed in all re- suspicious after the fact circumstances *13 spects accomplice in that re- witness outweigh far the mere should fact quirements jury are met placing testimony there is no the accused guilty beyond defendant doubt reasonable of the crime at the the scene immediate and the witness to have time of the offense. and there was evi- corroborated sufficient recently approved “This has dence for such corroboration.” Court Cherb v. Tex.Crim. evidence, including the App.1971, following regard rule with Smith, only living other occu- Linda accomplice testimony: corroboration house, pant of the trailer considered in Minor v. ‘This Court also said as we light the verdict most favorable to 108 Tex.Cr.R. do, every other must excludes reasonable 1927, cited the court Edwards v. except guilt. hypothesis appellant’s 629, 632, Tex.Crim. reasons, For all the above State’s App.1968: forbidding “The con law granted rehearing should be motion upon the viction uncorroborated testimo and the conviction should affirmed. ny an accomplice does not demand pointing that there direct evidence offender, merely
the accused but be ‘other
requires there
tending with to connect defendant ' . . Cir the offense committed’ . proved by
cumstances credible witnesses in
may potent be as as direct tending to accused connect the with TERRY, Appellant, Jack is commission the offense. The State upon single .point called some Texas, Appellee. itself, STATE or isolated fact is unrelated which proven facts, to other will be sufficient No. 45615. corroboration. It is the combined Appeals of of Criminal Texas. weight of the evidence fur cumulative 7, 1973. by non-accomplice nished witnesses Feb. supply If it the test. this rule
appears appeal that before the proof
there was the testimo cpnfirming facts
ny material
tending accused to connect the with offense, the law commission ’
satisfied.”
“Surely appears appeal there confirming jury proof
was before the accomplice,
testimony of the of facts to connect the ac- tending
Smith offense, viewing
cused its com- weight. these
bined and cumulative Under
circumstances, its contends that State