Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 605.0

529US2

Unit: $U52

[09-26-01 10:36:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

530

CARMELL v. TEXAS

Opinion of the Court

House of Lords, and the King gave his assent.
Id., at 214–
225; see also An Act to Attaint Sir John Fenwick Baronet of
High Treason, 8 Will. III, ch. 4 (1696). On January 28, 1697,
Sir John Fenwick was beheaded. 9 Macaulay 226–227.

IV

Article 38.07 is unquestionably a law “that alters the legal
rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony,
than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offence, in order to convict the offender.” Under the law
in effect at the time the acts were committed, the prose-
cution’s case was legally insufﬁcient and petitioner was en-
titled to a judgment of acquittal, unless the State could
produce both the victim’s testimony and corroborative
evidence. The amended law, however, changed the quan-
tum of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction; under the
new law, petitioner could be (and was) convicted on the vic-
tim’s testimony alone, without any corroborating evidence.
Under any commonsense understanding of Calder’s fourth
category, Article 38.07 plainly ﬁts. Requiring only the vic-
tim’s testimony to convict, rather than the victim’s testi-
mony plus other corroborating evidence is surely “less tes-
timony required to convict” in any straightforward sense
of those words.

Indeed, the circumstances of petitioner’s case parallel those
of Fenwick’s case 300 years earlier.
Just as the relevant law
in Fenwick’s case required more than one witness’ testimony
to support a conviction (namely, the testimony of a second
witness), Texas’ old version of Article 38.07 required more
than the victim’s testimony alone to sustain a conviction
(namely, other corroborating evidence).20 And just like Fen-

of the Treason. . . . Then this is a Law; ex post facto, and that hath been
always condemned . . .”).

20 Texas argues that the corroborative evidence required by Article 38.07
“need not be more or different from the victim’s testimony; it may be
entirely cumulative of the victim’s testimony.” Brief for Respondent 19;