Case Name: WILLIAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-10-05
Citations: 1 S.W.2d 624
Docket Number: No. 10099
Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. STATE.
(No. 10099.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 5, 1927.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1928.
Chancellor & Bryan, of Bowie, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction for being an accomplice to the crime of felony tbeft; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
Upon most of the legal questions involved in this case it is a companion case to that of Jarrott v. State (No. 10108) 1 S. W. (2d) 619, opinion this day banded down, and tbe same conclusion has been reached upon these questions as was reached in the Jarrott Case.
No testimony was introduced on'the trial on behalf of tbe appellant. Tbe state's testimony shows without contradiction that, when Voss and Jarrot reached the town of Bowie on tbe night bf tbe taking of officer Griffin's car, Voss drove tbe car first in one direction and then in another, according as be was told so to drive by Jarrot, until the car was finally driven into a garage. At this point Jarrot left tbe car, telling Voss that he was going to get his purchaser. He returned presently with Williams, whose clothing and general appearance indicated that be bad just gotten out of bed. Williams examined tbe coups carefully and offered Jarrot $100 for it, saying at tbe time that be bad told Jarrot to get a 1925 coupS and that tbe one before him was a 1924 model. Williams said be would, not give Jarrot $150 for a 1924 model, because be bad told him to bring a 1925 model. This conversation is detailed by Voss and Griffin. Tbe parties were in tbe presence of tbe stolen ear. They were discussing a prior agreement between them and prior directions given by this appellant to Jarrot. Williams bad in bis pocket at tbe time about $160 in money, which was later observed by tbe witnesses. We think these facts justified tbe jury in concluding appellant to have, prior to tbe time of tbe tbeft of tbe car, advised, aided, and encouraged Jar-rot in such tbeft. It is specifically provided in tbe statute, and tbe court so told tbe jury in tbe charge in this case, that it is not necessary that tbe exact offense committed be tbe one that tbe accomplice has aided, advised, and encouraged in order to make him guilty.
There is some complaint of tbe argument made by the county attorney to the jury. When tbe argument was objected to, the court instructed tbe jury not to consider it. We do not consider tbe argument as inflammatory, or as being of such character as to call for a reversal of this case.
Objection was made to testimony that, while in custody, appellant was seen to deliver to bis attorney about $160 in money. This was clearly admissible.
Finding no error in tbe record, tbe judgment will be affirmed.