Case Name: POPE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-15
Citations: 271 S.W. 380
Docket Number: No. 8870
Parties: POPE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 271
Pages: 380–380

Head Matter:
POPE v. STATE.
(No. 8870.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 15, 1925.)
1. Criminal law @=>1184 — Judgment, sentencing defendant to two years’ confinement in penitentiary, would be reformed in accordance with indeterminate sentence law.
Judgment in prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, sentencing defendant to two years’ confinement in penitentiary, would be reformed in accordance with indeterminate sentence law, so as to confine defendant for a term of not less than one nor more than two years.
2. Criminal law <@==>507(I) — Purchaser of Intoxicating liquor held not an accomplice of defendant.
In liquor prosecution, purchaser, on whose testimony defendant was convicted, was not an accomplice so that his testimony required corroboration, in view of Acts 37th Leg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61, § B adding section. 2c to Acts 1919, 2d Called Sess. c. 78 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588)403) regardless of his motive in mating purchase.
<@=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Camp County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Sullivan Pope was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reformed and affirmed.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Defendant was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor to one Gibbons. Punishment is two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
In entering judgment the court overlooked applying the indeterminate sentence law. The judgment is now so reformed as to confine defendant in the penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than two years.
Gibbons testified positively to the purchase of whisky from defendant. Witness had been requested by the sheriff to see if he could make the purchase. The only contention is that this circumstance rendered Gibbons an accomplice witness requiring corroboration. Since the Act of 1st C. S., 37th Legislature, c. 61, § B, adding § 2c to Acts 1919 (2d Called Sess.) c. 78 (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588^03), this court has repeatedly held that the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was not an accomplice, regardless of the motive prompting him in making the purchase. Lamm v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 252 S. W. 535; Laughlin v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 260 S. W. 865; Mills v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 459, 254 S. W. 790; Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 265 S. W. 166.
As reformed the judgment is ordered affirmed.