### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00335- CV

In the Matte r of V. G. V ., Jr.

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 360 5, H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A jury found that V
. G
. V
. , Jr
. , a p p e ll a n t, e n g a g e d in delinquent conduct by committing the offe nses of theft, criminal trespass, and burg lary of a motor vehicle. The trial court adjudicate d appellant delinquent based on the jury ’s finding s and committed him to the Texas Youth Commi ssion for an indeterminate period of time. I n three issues, appe l l an t contends his adjudications of delinquency wer e based on uncorr oborate d acc omplic e testimony and that the
non-ac complice evidenc e is insufficient to connec t him to the delinquent conduct. We will aff irm. The State alleg ed that on the night of Dec ember 5, 2012, appellant, a 16-y ear -old male, and two other men who wer e not juveniles committed theft of a firea rm, criminally trespasse d
on two proper

ti es , an d burg larized two motor vehicles. After a jury was empane lled, appellant pleade d “true ” to both alleg ations of criminal trespass and “not true” to the rema ining alleg ations. T he two men who wer e alleg ed to have committed the offe nses with appellant did no t t es t i fy as wi t n es s es at trial, but their videotaped statements to the police and a video of the two men tak en during their dete ntion in a patrol ca r we re shown to the jury during trial. During their discussionsin the patrol car and in their statements made to the police, the two men implicated appellant in the

criminal ac tiviti es that occ urre d on the nig ht of Dec ember 5, 2012. I n this appea l, appellant arg ues that the two other men wer e acc omplices as a matter of law, attacks the leg al sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to corr oborate their testimony , and contends that the trial court err ed by not g ranting his motion for direc ted verdic t on the g round that the State failed to present suff

icient evidenc e cor

robora ting the a lleg ed ac complice- witness testimony
. 1 Section 54.03(e) o f t h e Texas Fa mily Code require s corr oboration of acc omplicewitness testimony

in juvenile delinquency

proce eding s:
An adjudication of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision cannot be had upon the testimony of an acc ompli ce u n less corr oborate d by other evidenc e tending to connec t the child with the alleg ed delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision; and the corr oboration is not sufficie nt if it mere ly shows the commission of the alleg ed conduc t.
Tex. Fam. Code § 54.03(e)
. The acc omplice-witne s s l an gu age in the Family Code is identical in
s ubstance to that of article 38.14 of t he Tex as C ode of Criminal Procedur e. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ar t. 38.14; In the Matter of C.M.G. , 905 S.W .2d 56, 58 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ). The acc omplice-witness rul e ref lects a leg islative deter

mination that acc omplice testimony imp l icating another person should be viewed with caution beca use “ac complices often have incentives to lie, such as to avoid punishment or shift blame to another person.” Blake v. State , Appellant bring s three appellate issues making the same cha l leng es with respe ct to the 1 offe nses of theft and burg lary of eac h of the two vehicles. These issues are analy tically identical in that they ask this Court to decide whether there was sufficie nt evidenc e to corr oborate the two men’s statements implicating appellant as a participa nt in the commissio n o f t h e delinquent conduct. Acc ording ly , we a ddress the issues tog ether
. 2971 S.W .2d 451, 454 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1998). Under this rule, it is not nece ssary for the

non-ac complice evidenc e to be suf f ic ie n t in itself to establish the acc used’s g uilt bey ond a rea sonable doubt. Gill v. State , 873 S.W .2d 45, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 9 4 ). No r i s it require d that the
non-ac complice evidenc e direc tly link the acc used to the crime. Id. ; Ree d v. State , 744 S.W .2d 112, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). “All t hat i s require d is that there be some non-ac compli ce ev i dence which tends to connec t the acc used to the commission of the offe nse alleg ed in the indictment.” Gill , 873 S.W .2d at 48 (empha sis in orig inal). The phrase “tends to connec t” has the ordinary dictionary definition, “to serve , contribute or conduce in some deg ree or way . . . to have a more or less direc t bear ing or eff

ect.” Holladay v. State , 709 S.W .2d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (quoting Boone v. State , 235 S.W . 580, 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922) ). There is no pr ecise rule a s to the amount of evidenc e that is requir ed to cor robora te the testimony

of an acc omplice; eac h case must be judge d on its own facts. Gill , 873 S.W .2d at 48.

I n the prese nt case , howeve r, neither of the two alleg ed acc omplices testified at trial. Their out-of-c ourt statements rec orded on the vi d eo t ap es p lay ed for the jury did not constitute “testimony ” of a

n acc omplice and ther efor e did not need to be corr oborate d. [T] he “testimony ” that must be corr oborate d is tha t w hich is a dduced “throug h live witnesses spea k i n g under oath or aff irmation in prese nce of tribunal.”
. . . [W ]e construe the “testimony ” contemplated by Article 38.14 to be of the narr ower , evidentiar y kind, the kind adduce d in open cour t by live witnesses under

oath. Bingham v. Stat e , 913 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (quoting B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 1476 (6th ed. 1990)). B eca use there was no a ccomplice -witness testimony adduce d at appe llant’s trial, the corr oboration require ment of Family Code section 54.03 was not implicated. The trial court 3there fore did not err in deny ing appellant’ s direct ed v er d ict based on the asser tion that the State failed to sufficie ntly corr oborate acc omplice-witness testim ony . We overr ule appellant’ s three issues.
CONCLUSION

Ha v i n g o verr

uled appellant’ s three issues, we aff irm the trial court’s order of commitment.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: Apr il 1, 2014

4