*1 Savage v. The State. 19‘H.'] a agents. their This the owners thereof or by provision statute.
Georgia Legislature punishes enacted storage The cold article Act when the cold storage kept license for a violation of the than the interested parties of others owners or for receiving deposits '¡Neither both club, combined, nor the storage. cold a “cold within terms of kept storage” of the the Act contemplation 1909. This is so so that no discussion. Cold would need obviously storage known” means cold a “commonly storage such keeping matter of business for or reward, hire commodi- receptacle storing ties and things of that sort and not to the owners belonging others, cold storage. the reasons
For I indicated have entered the above views as some the reasons for from the dissenting majority opinion.
Z. Z. The State. 4,
No. 3273. Decided November 1.—Bribery—Indictment—Proof—Subpoena. Upon witness, trial of offering subpoena where the for the wit- indictment, was set out ness it was necessary to introduce the same evidence, as it was shown other testimony the alleged summoned, duly dissenting. no Davidson, there was evidence to the contrary. Judge, — (cid:127)— 2.—Same—Evidence Declarations of Defendant Cross-examination— Other Offenses. Upon witness, trial bribing there was no error permitting testi- mony as to a conversation between the prosecuting witness and the defendant
with reference to and indictment, transaction out in set pay which defendant offered the witness he would leave the testify and other in that cases in witness, was a witness, tampering not only this matter showed with the legiti- was also brought mate cross-examination on matter into the case the defendant him- Davidson, dissenting. Judge, self. Stated—Tampering 3.—Same—Rule with Witness. present If or paid authorized leave, to, pending in a attempted a witness himself tamper, or did witness, proof Following such of same was admissible. Booth v. eases. Texas Grim. other Jury. 4.—Same—Evidence—Written Statement—Grand Where, others, bribery of upon trial of defendant and it was shown that grand before made a voluntary of the defendants went one state- writing him, and signed by all which was reduced ment defendants tried, there was jointly admitting indicted no error in said written same, against statement evidence as defendant who had there sufficient evidence instructing afterwards was not withdrawing said entirely said defendant to statement convict any purpose; it could instructing them that considered jury, Davidson, Judge, dis- attorney improper appearing. district conduct of the senting. (cid:127) Beports. 75 Texas Cbemixal [November,
5. —Same—Accomplice—Charge of Court. Where, upon trial bribery, the evidence did not more than raise the *2 question that one of the State’s witnesses was an accomplice, there was no error submitting jury instead of peremptorily instruct- ing Davidson, them that accomplice. he was an Judge, dissenting. —Same—Accomplice—Detective—Buie 6. Stated. If true it be prosecuting the witness originate did not the crime of offering bribe a to witness or was instrumental initiation, in its even though agreed accept he the upon the instructions re- officers and them, ported to accomplice, and where this fact, correctly submitted' the same to jury. Following Bush v. State, 299, Rep., 68 Texas Grim. other cases. Davidson, Judge, dissenting. —Same—Charge 7. of Court—Verdict. Where the court instructed the that where several defendants were together, tried jury may stich of convict defendants as they may believe from beyond the evidence a reasonable guilty, doubt are others, acquit the court verdict four, the defendant convicted out of complaint charged they must find all of the Davidson, defendants is not well taken. Judge, dissenting. —Same—Charge 8. of Court—Corroboration—Other Transactions. Where, upon trial of bribery, several defendants of which convicted, there was certain ato conversation between defendant alleged and the bribed subsequent transaction
.indictment, in country leave testi- evade cases, fying pending in that and other there was no error in the court’s fail- thereon; separately charge neither ure corroboration necessary was the subsequent transactions to one on Davidson, trial. Judge, dissenting. —Same—Sufficiency 9. of the Evidence. Where, others, offering trial of to bribe a witness defendant and convicted, error the' defendant evidence was wherein conviction, sufficient to sustain ground. Davidson, there was no on that Judge, dissenting. —Same—Accomplice—Charge 10. of Court. Where, witness, upon trial of offering to bribe a the court witness was believed said testi- and his etc., offense, defendant mony tended to connect the with the commission of the State, Following error. Oates Rep., same reversible v. 51 Texas Grim. 449, other cases. Stated—Accomplice—Charge of Court—Corroboration. 11. —Same—Buie ac- requires of an A court is error which offense; charge must with the complice tend connect the defendant defendant with connects require that de- testimony tends connect the corroborating charged, offense and that fendant with the offense. Tried below before the District of Potter. Court Appeal James H. Browning. Hon. bribe a witness leave from a offering conviction Appeal two years penitentiary. and not testify; penalty, case. states the —Where a trial for is on Dooley, for appellant. Reeder & mu] Savage v. The State. 215 witness, bribe a of a of offering offense State, v. Texas Crim. is inadmissible: Fore 5 of such witness bribery id., State, id., v. 514; State, 13 20 251; Chumley Williamson v. App., 1105; 308, State, 57 Texas Crim. 123 S. W. Rep., Johnson v. 547; Rep., 1130; State, 366, 128 S. W. Windham v. 59 Texas Crim. Rep., Rep., 584; State, 177,115 W. Hinson Rep., Saldiver v. 55 Texas Crim. Rep., S. v. State, 939; Lightfoot v. 51 Texas Crim. 100 W. Rep., Rep., S. 345; 128. State, 106 State, Rep., S. W. Williams 38 Rep., v. accom co-conspirator
Declarations or confessions of an alleged inad the crime defendant after the commission of alleged plice State, 67; missible: Allen 8 Texas Simms v. State, v. Crim. App., v. O’Qninn id., 18; 10 Texas Crim. Shiflett 131; v. id., W. 530; Rep., 448, 62 Texas Crim. S. Day *3 Alford that in evidence: question
On he introduced subpoena State, v. 8 Texas Crim. 545. App., not that court’s in
Upon affirmatively failure charging State, State’s witness an Texas was Davis v. 70 accomplice: Barkley State, Crim. 524, 288; Crim. 158 19 Texas Rep., Rep., W. Steele v. S. 425.
App., convict one or of court’s more Upon charge authorizing 30 Crim. defendants, State, 597; etc: Tittle v. Texas Dill App., State, id., v. 1 278. court’s failure that State’s instructing
Upon peremptorily Davis accomplice: State, witness 70 Crim. Barkley v. Texas 524, 288; State, 158 S. Dever 37 Texas Rep., Rep., W. Crim. Rep., v.
396; Morawitz v. 436. State, id., 46 State, Upon question corroboration an Carden accomplice: 598; 62 Texas 60 545, Crim. S. W. Pelton v. Rep., Rep., W. Texas 132 S. 480. a a
Upon question bribe makes accepting disobey subpoena, which an witness Ruffin v. accomplice: 565; Crim. Rep., 6 Texas Crim. O’Brien v. App.,
On of court’s question accomplice testimony: Cases cited in opinion. Lane, General,
G. B. Assistant Attorney Dis- S. Henry Bishop, trict Attorney, the State. DAVIDSOH, Judge.—Appellant indicted was bribe offering to in a J. M. case wherein Frank Engman was defend
ant charged with violation the local option County. law Potter n The indictment charges conspiracy acting together between Savage and others. testified that appellant, practically Engman and Plemons offered to a witness in as disappear also, not testify. indictment The alleges after setting out the subpoenas alleged Barkley, have been served upon that they were served by a deputy sheriff S. named D. The Biddings. Reports. [November, 75 Texas Chiminal wit- Biddings was introduced as
statement of facts shows Steve to his name. The contention him was as asked ness. only question that the charges subpoena the indictment that inasmuch as intro- to have been ought D. that the subpoena served S. Biddings, be made also proof duced in evidence the jiuy, before necessary it was Whether charged. served the Biddings papers indictment, and unnecessary 'or set out the subpoenas further fact S. D. officer served Biddings process witness, allegations meet proved should have D. the indictment. nor S. were introduced subpoenas matter so far as Biddings reference to the questions in error. statement of facts is This was concerned bill of exceptions. The first bill of the witness per- recites exceptions mitted to to a between himself testify appel- conversation occurring indict- lant at Elks hotel transaction set out ment, which he states offered to him some pay in-connection with this cases which was defendant. and other Engman others, not res objections urged, gestae Many among transaction and be introduced to show independent could intent. There are a lot of cases system or cited quite showing of this introduced character could on the and also number of cases system, quite showing of this not be used intent on the facts case could the part It not 'be introduced for Savage. these If purposes. indictment, to bribe the manner indicated in the there facts intent, because the shown the witness’ made *4 the so far as his make it. complete case could He testimony says was offered received to absent himself from the money country, leave, not so but did Plemons and Scott with him went Tucumcari, of Hew Mexico. the direction He Plemons says bought his ticket from Amarillo to El Paso and gave addition to thirteen dollars some cents. If this was amounting paid no to bribe there issue to intent. facts was The carry it the act. intent with in the consummation of The offers not be used for that in this to bribe could case. Extraneous purpose crimes intent or may be used connect the develop party transaction on trial, or res or to develop gestae system This evidence does case. not within proper bring of any these rules. It not be could corroborate Bark- Barkley, used because himself, was ley and could not corroborate other and no witness testified the fact that the conversation ever occurred. If n was at all, admissible it was upon the conversation be- theory tween defendant and was with reference to herb the case ‘The contention charged. seems to that -this be is admissible under case of Carden v. 62 Texas Grim. writer, how- The ever, is of the was opinion not admissible under the facts this case. authority of The majority of was the evidence admissible. Savage v. The It.] State. Thomas, defendants,
Another bill recites that one of C. G. went before the and made a written statement in which he grand excul- himself from to do with the entirely having anything bribery, pated made his This was made after statements criminative of co-dcfendants. transaction indictment was based was on which the complete co-con- who is offense as the alleged the same
by party which ought testimony, to this spirators. Many objections urged were state- The It jury. have sustained. before the place after ment of other co-conspirator co-conspirators inculpating except transaction can not anybody be used evidence against against not be used therefore it could statement, party making state- The been admitted. Plemons and should statement, and ment was maker of exculpatory entirely Thomas an indirect the statement way getting before sought before the the State matters grand jury stating Thomas make its case the statement of against others, least used, not thus true of them. could inculpatory that this and was not further statement admissible. We make the original therefore introduced was completed, does not arise. After the ease on the facts
impeachment Thomas, the district and then-withdrew instructed the judge acquittal Thomas’ written mentioned from the consideration statement above and it would seem like have been jury. Many opinions written, can not number, illegitimate sufficient to the effect that It introduced and then controlled of the court. first, court, inadmissible the instruction of clearly against Savage, Thomas, that it then against subsequently be considered It error. is of from the did cure the withdrawing entirely jury, court makes sufficient to reverse this importance judgment.
statement bill: “The statement complained qualifying evidence, to defendant bill, admitted solely admitted and the then same, specially who made the C. G. any it as to consider evidence and the other defendants. After the testimony as against
purpose this state- court in the fifth withdrew closed the paragraph this state- recognized The court ment altogether jury.” two against the other that it wraserror introduce ment It be used Thomas. entirely it could only parties *5 Thomas. exculpated to the court’s exceptions charge properly a number are There quite district judge. read to and verified by before being (cid:127)taken instructions refused of special requested number are quite There time, verified judge. in as proper were court, adjudication. for presented are properly of these questions All anwas to whether Barkley to the as submitted question court the court should insists or not. Appellant was an Under accomplice. Barkley and directly positively the jury was an accomplice That Barkley is correct. this contention record this [November, Eepoets. 75 Texas Ceiminal is not a debatable issue under the facts. substance, He testified, in offered him they to leave the money country, into going detail transaction; Plemons bought the ticket at Amarillo, paying it; $16.95 for would they carry.him an auto to some on point the railroad from Amarillo leading to El Paso, him and in addi- pay tion That $23.05. they reached the designated point where he towas take the railroad El for Paso and ensued controversy between and him Plemons as to the amount of get, contending to Plemons that he was to have ten dollars of the to forty conveying Barkley this on point railroad, and he was to have contending dollars, the entire forty resulting, his Barkley says, $13.45 getting and the ticket, railroad $16.95, and Plemons He ten dollars. retaining then into got communication with the sheriff at over Amarillo the tele- who phone; came him, after well as Plemons and who had been in the auto with him to this were all carried to point. back They Amarillo next and morning, this prosecution followed. The further to the effect if there was all, at that he bribery solicited any the offer of the bribe and so until it was continuously offered and then he accepted it. He testifies that he working matter connection with the sheriff’s That department'and attorney. the district he had plead what “bad passing called checks” and at working the courthouse the fine. That and paying he had other cases trouble with the courts some of which unnecessary were It is pending. all of repeat the statements relation of this witness showing the case. It is useless for assume, circumstances and statements as made this witness, that there was any question or issue toas his are accomplice. The authorities in Texas clear so and positive uncontradictory upon not to . ought be debatable. into Under this witness’ evidence he went a scheme to work a case at against these up parties beginning order them into get trouble, so he having accepted done railroad money and ticket and start agreed leave the and did to El Paso and later on did in another leave country, instance he testifies that sent him to different appellant Savage points Texas, and Arizona to him out of the country, California keep latter instance. There could in- made so own The court
accomplice, testimony. his should have structed In that he was an this state- accomplice. jury positively They ment we into defensive of -the evidence. side going him money, never whole transaction and deny say they paid . ticket that Plemons to railroad came Bárkley testified regard him, Plemons, when at him dollars and asked him gave twenty him ticket El Paso. That Imew .and depot buy heard them brother-in- he, Plemons, about the fact that talking law, Thomas, Tucumcari, Mexico, were to sell an auto- going Hew mobile, and that they working on it particular morning, them to carry came along, which agreed do, he had occasion to go depot some purpose, *6 l&u.] Savage v. The State. him him to ticket for
least went to depot, buy the him given brought dollars which he did and twenty by Barkley, with the The about the when money they finally him $3.05. back controversy Plemons, he, out the fact that Amarillo of leaving grew after separated theretofore, had loaned the paying witness Barkley This Barkley this he wanted him what he owed. Barkley to pay so he the do, $3.05, declined and that was finally gave Barkley end of transaction are mat- But those Plemons’ viewpoint.
ters it is here attack is, to discuss. The here unnecessary on the man because it charge court’s failed instruct the jury was an A of discussion the defendant’s side accomplice. of ease is to an unnecessary of that as point, elucidation their exonerative. The purely court should have charged jury court accomplice. Also in this connection, charged jury they could not the defendants upon Barkley’s find guilty testimony, "unless first you of the said H. believe J. true, is and that it show, defendants, tends to shows, or or some one or more of them, indictment; is charged guilty
and still you defendants, can convict the or them, you unless further believe there is other evidence in outside of the J. M. testimony of said Barkley, tending defendants, connect or some one of them, or more commission with the of the offense in the indictment.” There are a number of taken to quite exceptions this charge, which sustained. should have been That portion the court to charge given the effect that must Barkley’s tend to show that the guilty, defendants are is in contravention all the decisions where has been For collated adjudicated.
cases see Law, Branch’s Criminal sec. 320. been collated These have so often in it the decisions we deem than refer unnecessary do more to the cases as Hr. The is not sufficient charge collated Branch. tells the that the evidence jury accomplice tend The
tends to same is to the defi- objection urged gqilt. general £how nition of as well as in application law to the ease. is where court is objection charge just quoted applying the law to case. In the definition lan- he uses the same general guage, that the believe is, jury must first accomplice’s true, and that shows or tends to defendant’s That guilt. show portion of this is also criticised which informs the that the jury would if it tends accomplice’s be sufficient shows defendants, or some charged. one more them guilty nowhere limits the of the law the particular application in- might who find circumstances guilty dicated. would seem from should given It. corroborated, find or there tending was evidence or that tended him, guilt, corroborate prove find them all under those if the circumstances that some one them was guilty. come to the conclusion Applying case, after definition general principals giving law *7 Beports. 7o Tesas Criminal [November. an as to directing acquittal he then instructed the that jury if believe they beyond should a reasonable doubt that the defendants, Frank Z. Z. Bluford Savage Plemons, and Engman, acting together, about of April, on or the third day 1913, unlawfully, cor- wilfully and offered to bribe the witness J. M. Barkley ruptly Frank Engman in that court, case then pending disobey subpoena, would con- they with In charge quoted, vict. reference to previously testi- that if he instructs them should they believe mony, and that connected or tended to the defendants accomplice, connect case, then all of with find them It takes no they might guilty. that to show is erroneous. The charge reasoning clearly should have instructed the that convict jury pointedly they the man to whom they might sufficient, as find the and to convict of them sufficient as all unless found the evidence to all they them, that all them. and was corroborated as to This sufficient discussion of the on indicated errors. perhaps charge were out These the defendant pointed exceptions not only before was hut in charge exceptions, read the jury, bills were refused charges matters, asked these which special covering the court. Another with reference to the transaction special charge that occurred says between himself and appellant Savage Elk Savage hotel. In testified that conversation They it, finally as to amount of money. controversy but agreed like one thousand dollars would leave something then country. He went into detail as to how the matter to be handled, that he did leave the away, went connection, sent him money. in this special requested was not the court and no similar is' as follows: given by charge given, “The witness John to other you regard before Barkley testified transactions with offers of alleged some defendants and other How, bribes. such other transactions regard subsequent you are instructed that what- before can them for any purpose consider you ever took first find from the evidence transactions you such further, testified to transactions in place such by Barkley, themselves constituted defined also the term is offense bribery in the court’s charge, away or at least constituted or were an offer do evidence in do from the evidence case, unless find you both that such also that other transactions are true and alleged constituted offense, such will not same them, or one of consider you refused also' instructions which were any purpose.” They asked special court, and none of similar that before import given by jury the transactions testified to could consider by Barkley subsequent this, of the indictment case for should filing any purpose, they find from evidence that such transactions took actually place Barkley, testified further such transactions in themselves also the constituted offense or at least an effort bribery constituted to do away reason, mui Savage v. The State. transactions indictment are in no event testi- subsequent legal to be unless first
mony considered testi- finds the and that mony to be true the transactions took actually place offense, etc. constituted Other penal portions same
also to the attention of court and asked that brought reference with reference the corroboration of transactions, accom- theory could not himself not as to plice, corroborate this case as to subsequent matters he testified between other himself and occurring parties. We are these charges given, *8 at least or involved them have been to principle given cor-, and an not jury fully fairly. Barkley being accomplice by any robórate himself he in con- inculpatory might give nection it and bribery. with He was it from organized to party to under end his own conver- beginning testimony, whatever other sation occurred with to the matter between reference him and one of the parties design, after the alleged him as much implicated necessarily itas did either of the defendants to whom he have talked. The may may have been with fact that impressed state- ments and conversations corroborated reference by to the original course, transaction. courts lawyers Of would not so under- it, but stand are not versed jurors matters, in these this phase the case should have carefully testimony so that guarded not be might illegal to unlawful appropriated purpose.
It is contended evidence is not sufficient to the conviction. support The is with disposed writer the contention. agree Barkley himself the matter from the principal beginning. originated He helped about originate the scheme which he was brought by accept the bribe. We so far are of facts as the concerned he was corroborated by fact circumstance of suffi- cient importance gave him appellant Savage any money him out convey original transaction. Barlcley undertook to so does, else and the testify, shows nobody testimony that he had dollars with which the ticket was twenty bought, and did not it from get and so far as Savage, no witness goes shows that Barkley Savage. received writer is not The to see a man willing incarcerated on character penitentiary That testimony. shown his own is not corroborated, facts, testimony, and so as I far understand that would to connect any manner tend him paying him out of the country. running
The is reversed and the judgment cause remanded. remanded.
Reversed and HARPER, Judge.—I agree the reversal of case on account of the error in in accomplice testimony, wherein structed the that if find that jury, ¡Reports. [November, 75 Texas Criminal etc. The other guilty, tended to show the defendant I grounds agree do to and will write views later. my
November HABPEB, Judge. grand —The indictment was returned Frank Thomas charging appellant, Plemons and C. G. Engman, Bluford bribe one J. M. who had been summoned offering Barlricy, as a appear witness Frank in a then against Engman pending against him, leave the State as witness appear said Engman. case, We will not undertake a full statement of the we have all the concurred a reversal of the but not agreeing holdings Davidson, of Judge we will state our views on such questions.
The record duly discloses had been fully legally and a witness, summoned as therefore the failure to introduce the subpoena would not number error. When this fact was present testified witnesses, no evidence offered this fact was contrary, sufficiently proven. as to conversations had between at the Elks hotel, we think admissible
all the rules of law. In the first Barkley, in cross-examination of place, the defendant this matter in the brought record. the State in its direct related to the offer solely indictment, forty-dollar transaction. cross- On
examination of defendant, the witness to his credit destroy a witness, had two if he name to signed Savage’s checks. admitted that done was he had so. Then State to on show redirect examination came permitted of the witness how he to name to two Savage’s these witness testified sign checks, after indictment had with been returned charging appellant him, to came the offer to his room and offered Savage a to to leave the State and not as witness agreed pay appear $1000 him in this and other pending; agreed eases against bribery he it, and and in accordance instructions to did leave with accept had name to these' two checks. This signed appellant’s from Savage was he had merely explanation why signed appellant’s name checks, fact, and as elicited that it certainly had was per- he done missible the State show that had so instructions by the man checks. But whose name signed was admissible for another reason and on another ground. indicted for This attempt Barkley. to bribe alleged
inwas leave the not testify $1000 the offer of reference State and him in against was case then case of which he bribery pending—this convicted. It has been held admissible to always flight show with with witnesses person charged crime, or a tampering by State him as circumstance to show his As said tending guilt.
Mr. his Branch in work on Criminal Law: “If defendant authorized leave, a. or was offered or present paid mil.] Savage v. The State.
himself
to or
attempted
did
with
tamper
it
witness,
is not
error
admit
of such
proof
fact.” Branch’s
Law,
Criminal
sec. 862; Clark v.
522;
43 S.
W.
Ezell v. State,
paid by saj^s approached county the defendants he the matter to reported the the proposition by sheriff; the instructed him to the théy accept money, and attorney leave, and then to to them. He he agree bring says and to the sheriff attorney, did at once matter and deliv- county report them, at and the defendants were ered the once arrested Reports. [November-, 75 224 Texas Criminal . money, of or but accepting no idea sheriff; leaving that he had If this is this did true, the officers. instigation at took it This in law. is question him an discussed not make 299, 68 W. in Bush v. 151 S. Judge Rep., Davidson 55-1,,and true line of is there demarcation marked out—if one Rep., crime is originates the or instrumental initiation, its though even officer, detective other he would if, however, be an he accomplice; is all his approached, and steps detecting are taken with view 'crime, is not and crime, such we to no can agree other rule. This question fully discussed Minter v. Texas Crim. 634, 159 S. W. Rep., 286, Holmes Rep., 214, Texas Crim. collated, S. W. authorities and to which we refer. here Defendants their not say do testimony they bribe, solicited offer all knowl they deny edge matter, and certainly Barkley’s tes testimony the other does not more timony do than raise may an accomplice, which it was to submit proper their determination, and this court did. Heither do think we charge the court subject is criticism
that if should believe one they they find all the defendants guilty guilty. “Where several jury: defendants tried together, as in this case, may convict such de- fendants as believe from they beyond a reasonable may doubt are others.” The guilty acquit their verdict so understood the for their verdict is: they law, “We, jury, find the Plemon, Engman defendants Bluford Frank and C. G. Thomas not and find the defendant Z. guilty, Z. as charged indictment and assess his confinement in punishment peni- two This shows were not tentiary misled; years.” court’s let was clear them understand the charge explicit enough law in this is such criticism of the particular, charge certainly not and can not out of be one four defendants justified convicted.
Heither do think for as we was called to the transaction any at the Elks hotel. This was' as leave attempt to an the State testify against these defendants admissible, such as would flight other circumstance with a witness on guilt, the issue of tampering to limit it charge, it would have been to have improper sought and such a weight testimony. would have been cited. The authorities on this herein been heretofore question have Keither was corroboration as to necessary trial, showing
transactions the one on offer tampering bribe a witness not to trial of appear testify on the this case.
I do not that the does conviction, agree support there was trial. As will be tried error in will again, I comment it, but if true, State is *11 shows a effort to not to deliberate appear testify State. v. Whitten W-] him; payment then pending against Engman any are circumstances corroborating that purpose, dollars for
thirty a .conviction. sustain sufficient to except Davidson Judge discussed by all the questions These error. it shows I have in the opinion concur in which I one just desired length; any great at above questions discussed As to law. holdings ruling such protest enter my in the reversal concur which I ground, upon the only ground, in testimony. on charge The.court it is believed if they structed the jury paragraph defendants connect “tended to his testimony an accomplice and it has been error, offense.” This commission of the with the to us out, strange it seems so held and pointed so often objec in his into the record. continue creep Appellant error should and it should charge, out this error in the tion pointed specifically Crim. Rep., Texas In the cases of v. corrected. Oates State, 55 182; Tate Barrett Crim. v. 449; v. 397; 56 Texas Maples Texas Crim. Rep., rule 320, where the Law, section in Branch’s Criminal other cases cited only requires to be “a charge is stated error offense. defendant ‘tend’ to connect the an accomplice accom require on merely charged, on trial the offense ‘connects’ person plice ” need this only testimony, the corroborating As to ‘tend to connect.’ accom offense, but the trial with the to connect” the person “tend with the was connected the defendant must show plice future. understood in the trust this distinction will be We transaction. the case. to a reversal of agree this error in the we For remanded. Reversed and Judge Harper’s concur Presiding Judge. PBEBDEBGAST, —I opinion.
Wiley v. The Whitten State. 11, 1914. November Decided
No. 3327. Option—Sale—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Local whisky said that he some Where shown whisky trunk; paid him for the and went prosecuting
home in his trunk, showed him defendant’s brother defendant’s where defendant’s home quart whisky, the sale got therefrom a into it the witness went complete. Biver. before Court of Bed Tried below from the Appeal County Hon. Morrison. Geo. law; from a conviction of a violation of the local option pen- Appeal a fine of confinement in alty, twenty days county $25 and jail.
The opinion states the case.
Vol. 75 Crim.-15