Case ID: sw_296/html/0888-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BETHEA, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTIN v. STATE.
    (No. 11047.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 24, 1927.
    Criminal law <&wkey;5ll(l) — In prosecution for robbery, evidence held insufficient to corroborate accomplices and sustain conviction (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 718).
    In prosecution for robbery, evidence held insufficient, under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 718, to corroborate accomplices and to warrant conviction.
    • Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Archer County; E. G. Thornton, Judge.
    Whitie Martin was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. M. Wylie, of Archer City, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Byles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of robbery, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case with No. 11028, Bob Kirby v. State, 296 S. W. 529, in which the opinion was delivered on June 15, 1927.

The evidence in this case shows that the appellant was present at the time of the robbery; that he, together with the prosecuting witness Eubanks, was robbed by the accomplice witness Hawkins and Bob Kirby. These facts were testified to by the accomplice witness.

There is nothing in the record tending to connect appellant with the alleged robbery. There are no facts showing that he knew the robbery was to take place, nothing to show that he aided by acts, or encouraged by words or gestures, the said Hawkins and Kirby in the commission of the robbery.

It is our opinion the eorrobative evidence is not sufficient to warrant a conviction. Noble v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 404, 273 S. W. 251; Mann v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 34, 276 S.W. 1100; Ross v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 601, 286 S. W. 221; article 718, C. C. P. 1925.

For the reason assigned above, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the’ court. 
      fi=»For other cases see same topic and ICBY-NUMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes