Court Opinion

ID: 9677664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:56:52.693514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:57.456864
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
While I thoroughly concur with Judge Douglas’ opinion, I have concluded that these few observations need to be added concerning the test for determining whether one who remains silent about his knowledge of a crime is an accomplice.
In regard to such a determination, this Court has distinguished mere silence or concealment of a crime from overt behavior calculated to aid the defendant to evade arrest or escape prosecution or punishment.
In Tipton v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 439, 72 S.W.2d 290, this Court concluded that the mere fact that a witness falsely denied having knowledge of a crime did not alone render him an accomplice and discussed its prior holding in Littles v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 500, 14 S.W.2d 853, stating:
“. . . .In each of the cases cited by appellant it was shown that the witness affirmatively aided the one who had committed the offense to evade arrest or escape prosecution or punishment. For example, in Littles’ Case, the witness, upon first being questioned concerning the homicide, made false declarations to the officers favorable to the accused.

In Wade v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 367 S.W.2d 337, we explained the rule more fully in this manner:
“Mere concealment of knowledge that the crime has been committed does not make the person having such knowledge an accomplice witness. Steen v. State, 100 S.W.2d 109.”

“The facts before us here may be summarized.”

“The witness Whitaker did more than fail to disclose or conceal the attempt to bribe her. She falsely stated to the judge who was investigating the matter that no one had said anything to her about the case and did so for the purpose of protecting appellant from apprehension and prosecution.”
Still later in Curry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 455, we said:
“The fact that she made no report of his brutalizing the child could not make her an accessory, so as to become an accomplice witness, as she was not shown to have been questioned by officers and then to have given false answers.”
In the case at bar there was no showing that the witnesses Hobbs and McDaniels *307had been questioned by anyone in authority and answered falsely about their knowledge of the crimes in an attempt to aid the defendant evade arrest or escape prosecution or punishment.
I concur in the affirmance of this case.