Court Opinion

ID: 9635911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:10:11.881859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:38.801846
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The majority today transfers an appellate test for sufficiency into a heretofore unrequired jury instruction. No case cited by the majority requires the giving of such a charge. In Meyers v. State, 626 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), the test for sufficiency is set forth, but there is no indication that a jury instruction was even implicated in that case. Both Mitchell v. State, 650 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), and Dillard v. State, 550 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), upon which the majority also rely, stand for the proposition that the issue was not raised and such charge would not be required. Mitchell further recognized that a “mere presence” charge as given in the instant case would be adequate. See Gonzales v. State, 466 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and Dabbs v. State, 507 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Cases which have historically been cited in support of giving such a charge rely on McShane v. State, 530 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). McShane, however, has nothing to do with corroboration of accomplice witness testimony. McShane was a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance and dealt with the accused’s mere presence at the place where contraband was found. Such has no application here.
I do not believe such a charge would ever be required because the test is one of appellate sufficiency. A properly given charge on accomplice testimony and reasonable doubt will adequately protect an accused’s rights at trial. Gonzales, supra. *298I further perceive the rule that mere presence is not sufficient to corroborate an accomplice witness to be akin to the rule relative to possession of recently stolen property.
In the early case of Scott v. State, 36 S.W. 276 (Tex.Cr.App.1896), the Court held:
“As a matter of law, the jury might be authorized to convict, in a proper case, upon the fact of possession of recently stolen property, standing alone; but a charge telling the jury they could do so would be a charge upon the weight of the testimony, and besides, would be singling out a solitary face in a case, and charging upon that.” 36 S.W. at 277.
I am convinced that the language the majority embraces was intended as a guide for appellate consideration only to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, and not to be given in a charge to the jury. I have found no authority to the contrary.
I respectfully dissent.