Case Name: WILLMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-25
Citations: 268 S.W. 933
Docket Number: No. 8462
Parties: WILLMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 933–937

Head Matter:
WILLMAN v. STATE.
(No. 8462.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 25, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1925.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal law <®=>511(2) — Sufficiency of corroboration of accomplice must be determined by facts of each ease.
Vernon’s Ann. Cr. Code Proe. 1916, art. 801, merely provides that there must be testimony other than that of accomplice which tends to connect accused with commission of the offense, and in last analysis sufficiency of corroboration must be determined by facts of each case.
2. Criminal law <8=35(1(2) — Evidehce held to corroborate testimony of accomplice and to-sustain conviction of murder.
Evidence held sufficient to corroborate testimony of accomplice, and to sustain conviction of murder, as against contention that deceased was run over by railroad train.
Appeal. from District Court, Hamilton County; J. R. McClellan, Judge.
W. W. Willman was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Callaway & Callaway, of Comanche, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Second rehearing denied 269 S. W. 801.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Hamilton county of murder, and his punishment fixed at 65 years in the penitentiary.
This is the third time this case has been before us. Appellant and two others were charged with the murder of Jack MeOurdy in Comanche county, Tex., in 1921. The parties charged were tried separately thereafter and convicted, and all the cases upon appeal were reversed. See Howard v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 221, 242 S. W. 739; Willman v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 242 S. W. 746; Walker v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 242 S. W. 749. The parties were again tried, convicted, and upon appeal the cases were again reversed. See 94 Tex. Cr. R. 653, 252 S. W. 543.
We have gone over the various errors assigned relating to the rejection of special charges and argument of counsel and each other matter complained of, as carefully as we can, and, without setting same out or discussing them at length, are of opinion that none of them present any reversible error. The chief contention made on this appeal is that the evidence does not sufficiently support the verdict. This matter has been considered each time the cases have been before us. The facts have been substantially the same on each trial. Upon the last appeal, above referred to, the presiding judge of this court, speaking for the court, states:
"The record supports the finding by the jury from evidence independent of that of Henry of certain circumstances which are relied upon to corroborate."
The court then sets out at length a number of such corroborative circumstances. In summing up this feature of the case we s^d in that opinion:
"No effort has been made to state all of the testimony, nor to particularize all of the facts relied upon as corroborative of Henry. While many of the circumstances are controverted, the truth of them was for the jury, and, if found to be true, they may reveal facts independent of the testimony of Henry, sufficient to support the jury's finding that they tended to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense."
The facts in these cases have been separately reviewed by the different members of this court upon the various appeals, and no great good could be accomplished by restating them. According to the testimony of the accomplice Henry, the deceased was killed at the home, of this appellant, by one Ed Walker-, who, with appellant, was holding deceased at the time. Said witness testified in detail to the manner of the killing and to the fact that thereafter the body was placed upon a horse upon which Ed Walker rode and beside which appellant rode on another horse and that they thus carried the body to a point near the track of the Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railroad upon which it was deposited by the joint efforts of appellant, Walker, Howard, and witness. Witness also detailed the manner in which he and deceased had gone to the home of appellant on that night and stated that he returned from the home of appellant to his own home after the homicide and after the body was disposed of. He denied taking any active part in the killing of deceased, and claimed that he tried to make his escape from the place after deceased was assaulted and stricken down, and averred that he was shot at by Howard and that a woman screamed at the house about the time of the shooting. The tracks of deceased and accomplice witness Henry were observed going from Henry's house to appellant's house, and the tracks of two horses going side by side were found going from appellant's house to a point near the railroad track. The track of Henry alone was also discovered going back from appellant's house to the home of Henry. About dark bn the evening of the homicide a shot and a scream of a worn an were heard by parties who lived in a general westerly direction from appellant and Henry. Said parties were of opinion at the time that the shot and sound came from the direction of the home of witness Henry, which lay east of south from them. Appellant's home was south of east from the same place. Other circumstances appear in evidence which are set out somewhat in detail in the case of Walker v. State, reported in 252 S. W. above referred to. The master has been in bur books quite often, and for further statement of the facts reference is made to the former appeals. We have carefully weighed and analyzed, as best we can, the facts in evidence relied on as tending to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice Henry, and we are not willing to hold that the evidence is insufficient to justify the jury in concluding that the accomplice was legally corroborated.
This being the chief question before us, and being unable to agree with appellant's contention in such regard, an affirmance will be ordered.
<®^>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes