Case ID: sw_227/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRANKLIN v. STATE.
    (No. 6060.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 12, 1921.)
    Crimina! law <§cn>5i0, 780(1) — Witnesses purchasing liquor should be corroborated and charge on accomplice testimony given.
    In a prosecution for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors under the Dean Law, witnesses purchasing the liquor from defendants were particeps criminis and accomplices, and a conviction cannot be had on the testimony of one of them without corroboration, and it was error not to so charge under sections 2, 31, and 36 of said act.
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Eugene Franklin was convicted of selling, bartering, and exchanging intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Wynne’ & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of selling, bartering, and exchanging to A. R. Newman spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquor and malt liquor and medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication.

Tbe evidence for the state shows it was whisky that was sold and to Newman as set out in the indictment. The alleged purchaser, Newman, was used as á witness on the trial, and testified that' about the 1st of March, 1920, Mr, Lunney and witness bought whisky from 'Eugene Franklin; that they bought either a quart or a half gallon; that he did not recollect specifically the am'ount; that Mr. Lunney gave the appellant the money, and he brought the whisky in the shop to them.

“I drank that whisky; it was intoxicating. I don’t think I had any conversation with the defendant about the transaction, but Mr. Lun-ney and I bought the whisky together. I was in the shop at the time the defendant delivered the whisky to ns. I saw him bring it in the shop and deliver it. Appellant was paid fifteen dollars a quart for the' whisky we bought from him. Mr. Lunney and I bought the whisky from the defendant and paid him for it.”

On cross-examination he testifies to another transaction in which they bought whis-ky from appellant, and that he himself bought whisky from appellant and paid fifteen dollars for his part. This witness’ testimony is all that was introduced on the trial. The" question is properly raised as to the failure of the court to charge with reference to accomplice testimony. This should have been done under sections 2, 31, and 36 of the Dean Law, as found in the First and Second Called Sessions of the 36th Legislature (Acts 36th Leg. [1919] c. 78). It is specifically provided that under the law this witnes's, under the circumstances to which he testified, would be guilty of a violation of the Dean Law, and could be punished the same as appellant. They were particeps criminis. Under the general law as well this witness would he an accomplice. Because of the failure of the court to charge with reference to accomplice testimony, and by reason of the further fact that there .was no attempt to corroborate the witness, the judgment must be reversed. Under the evidence this conviction could not be sustained unless there was corroboration of the witness who testified in the ease. This would be so whether we look to the Dean Law or the general statutes.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      (&=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes