Case Name: WHETSTONE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-02-02
Citations: 182 S.W. 1117
Docket Number: No. 3928
Parties: WHETSTONE v. STATE.
Judges: DAVIDSON, J., not present at consultation.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 182
Pages: 1117–1118

Head Matter:
WHETSTONE v. STATE.
(No. 3928.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 2, 1916.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 23, 1916.)
1. Ceiminai, Law @==>1099 — Appeai>-State-hent oe Facts — Late Filing.
The statement of facts with reference to the denial of new trial for newly discovered evidence, having been filed after adjournment, cannot be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. <©= 1099.]
2. Criminal Law <©=>511 — Accomplice Testimony — Corroboration.
Corroboration of accomplice being required only to tend to connect defendant with commission of the crime, and not to connect him therewith, it is enough that, on reward being offered ■for papers taken in a burglary, defendant, who was with the accomplices on the night of the crime, brought in some of them, and afterwards others of them, on further reward being offered, and stated that he found them buried on or-near land in his possession, and, on being asked as to the sack in which they had been, brought in one, and, on it proving not to be the one, brought in another, stating, as was the fact, “This is the sack.”
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1128-1137; 511.] see Criminal Dec. Dig. <©=>
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; H. F. O’Neal, Judge.
Willie Whetstone, Jr., was convicted, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Figures & Stewart, of Atlanta, for appellant. C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The state's case is made by the evidence of two accomplices. The evidence is to the effect: That the three went into the burglarized house at night and committed the theft of some property, notes, and mill checks, and some other matters. That in order to do this they had to break a safe. The safe would not lock, but it could be bolted, and was bolted on this particular night. Defendant was familiar with the situation of the safe, having worked in the store a short time prior to tlie burglary. It is unnecessary to go into a detailed statement. Briefly, the evidence shows that the defendant, with Nat Benjamin and John Williams, entered the store and took the things. Some of them were buried near a field belonging to Mr. Snipes, where they were subsequently found. Appellant brought some of the property back to the owner of the house and delivered them to him, stating during the conversation: That he had found them out in the woods near where he was working. That subsequently he found some more of the property and returned it. Mr. Morris paid him something for this. There are quite a lot of circumstances that tend to corroborate the testimony of the accomplices and connect appellant with the transaction. The contention of appellant is that the evidence is not sufficient. We are of opinion that it is. The accomplices or associates in the burglary make a plain case, and the circumstances and incidents connected with the whole matter, we think, sufficient to show that appellant was connected with it.
The remaining proposition for reversal is based upon newly discovered evidence. There was a statement of facts, with reference to this phase of the case, filed after adjournment of the court; the court having adjourned early in October, and the statement of facts with reference to the motion for new trial was not filed until early in January, subsequent-to the adjournment of court. Under the decisions of this state this statement of facts cannot be considered. There are quite a number of opinions so holding, and the reasons are fully given in those various opinions. It is unnecessary to go into any further discussion of that question.
The judgment will be affirmed.
DAVIDSON, J., not present at consultation.
<@=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes