Court Opinion

ID: 9665502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:50:01.221821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:16.166096
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
With respect to the sixteenth ground of error, Article 38.14, V.A.C.C.P., expressly prohibits a conviction upon accomplice testimony “unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”1 Clearly, the portion of the charge quoted in note 1 in the opinion of the Court has not “correctly stated the law relating to accomplice testimony,” for it wholly omits the first statutory requirement and substitutes for it evidence “tending to show ... the commission of the alleged possession of heroin,” that is not enough under the second statutory dictate. See recommended instructions on this matter in Morrison and Blackwell, Eighth Edition, Wilson’s Criminal Forms Annotated Sec. 88.01, 8 Texas Practice 214, 216; McClung, Jury Charges for Texas Criminal Practice (Revised Edition, January 1981) 247; and authorities annotated in both.
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that “the effect of the words used were the same,” and believe with others that they are not. Accordingly, I must dissent.

. All emphasis is mine unless otherwise indicated.