Case ID: sw2d_1/html/0887-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAMILTON v. STATE.
    (No. 11296.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 18, 1928.
    Criminal law <®=>511(1) — Evidence held insufficient to corroborate testimony of accomplice to burglary.
    Evidence held insufficient to corroborate testimony of confessed accomplice, and hence conviction for burglary based upon such testimony was reversed.
    Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Cooper Sansom, Judge.
    Francis Hamilton was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Miller, Price & Beard, of Waco, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, twelve years in the penitentiary.

A store was burglarized in Járrell, Tex., and a quantity of shoes, dresses, and other personal property, the exact extent of which was unknown to the owner, taken therefrom. Certain dresses and shoes were later recovered by the officers, and the manager of the mercantile establishment whose house was burglarized testified that, in his best judgment, said shoes and dresses were articles taken out of his store. The state relied chiefly on the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice who said that she, in company with appellant and three or four others, was present in Jarrell on the night in question when appellant and one Turner broke into the store, got some shoes and dresses and other articles. She said that the next morning some of the shoes taken from the burgla- . rized store were thrown out in Falkner’s lane at Waco. Said burglary occurred on the night of the 21st of April, 1927. Mr. Pricket testified that on the morning of April 22, 1927, he found eight shoes in Falkner’s lane at Waco, which were turned over to Sheriff Bigitam of Bell county. Sheriff Big-ham testified that he received eight shoes from witness Pricket and turned said shoes over to Sheriff Lowe, of Williamson county. He said that in his judgment the shoes exhibited in court were the same ones he re.ceived from Pricket. Sheriff Lowe testified that the shoes exhibited in court were the ones he received from Mr. Bigham.

Witness Lee testified that on the night of the 21st of April, and in the early part of the night, he saw Addie Bumhardt, the accomplice witness above mentioned, with. another girl and three men, in San Antonio, Tex., and last saw them about 11 o’clock that night, at which time they all got in a big closed car and drove away from where witness was. Bill Newton testified that some time between the 20th and 25th of April, 1927, he saw the same parties, viz., Addie Burnhardt, another girl, appellant, and two other men, in Mineral Wells, Tex., in a closed car. This is practically a complete statement of the incriminating testimony. Aside from that of the accomplice, we find no evidence in this record tending to connect the appellant with the offense of burglary of the store at Jarrell in Williamson county at night on April 21, 1927. No witness testifies to having seen him in Williamson county. No witness traces any of the alleged stolen property to his possession. Neither the shoes nor the dresses which were identified are shown to have ever been had by him, nor is there any statement in testimony made by appellant or tending to connect him with the commission of this offense other than from the accomplice. Lee says he saw appellant and four other parties in San Antonio in a closed car on the night of April

21st. Newton says he saw appellant and the •same parties in Mineral Wells between the 20th and 25th of April in a closed ear. If we should apply to this case one of the recognized tests of whether there be corroboration, namely, the analysis of the other testimony aside from that, of the accomplice, we should be forced to conclude that the record contains no evidence measuring up to the requirement of corroboration.

For entire lack of corroboration of the accomplice, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is sp ordered. 
      <g^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER.in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes