Court Opinion

ID: 9777210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:02:20.617756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:50.037204
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
DAVIDSON, Judge.
We entertain no doubt as to the correctness of our original conclusion that the testimony of an accomplice witness, together with the confession of the accused, is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of an offense. Kugadt v. State, 38 Texas Cr. Rep. 681, 44 S.W. 989, supra. Appellant’s views to the contrary are not tenable.
*627Appellant again stresses that his plea of former jeopardy was well taken — this, under the theory that the state’s testimony showed but one offense and that he had been fully prosecuted therefor.
The rule relied upon by appellant (Spannell v. State, 83 Texas Cr. R. 48, 203 S.W. 357) has application only when there is a single act supported by one volition.
Here, the facts show two separate acts with separate volitions. The rule relied upon by appellant has no application here.
Believing a correct conclusion was reached originally, the motion for rehearing is overruled.