Court Opinion

ID: 9655290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:05:02.835606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:17.311834
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge
(dissenting).
Under our present statute, Art. 524, Vernon’s P.C., as amended, one is guilty of the crime of sodomy who (a) has carnal copulation with another human being in the mouth and (b) uses his mouth on the sexual parts of another human being for the purpose of carnal copulation.
In Furstonburg v. State, 148 Texas Cr. Rep. 638, 190 S.W. 2d 362, we had occasion to determine the meaning of the term “carnal copulation” as being the same as “sexual intercourse” —that is, that carnal copulation meant sexual intercourse.
The indictment in this case alleged that appellant did unlawfully have “carnal copulation with Shirley Ann Johnson” in her mouth.
That allegation, in effect, was that appellant engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by inserting his sexual organ in her mouth.
Upon the face of that indictment, Shirley Ann Johnson was *5an accomplice witness, as a matter of law, to the unlawful act alleged, because she was a party to the act of sexual intercourse, without her participation in the act the offense was not and could not have been committed.
All persons are principals who are guilty of acting together in the commission of an offense. Art. 65, P.C.
As pointed out, it takes two persons to consummate an act of sexual intercourse. Therefore, the crime of sodomy by carnal copulation may be consummated only by two persons.
The adultery and fornication statutes, Arts. 499 and 503, P.C., support that conclusion. In those statutes, sexual intercourse between two persons is the gist of the offense, without which joint action those statutes are not violated.
In keeping with that constrúction, for over seventy-five years this court has consistently held that the paramour in adultery and fornication cases is an accomplice witness, as a matter of law, when testifying for the state. Branch’s P.C., Vol. 2, Sec. 1065; Merritt v. State, 10 Texas App. 402, delivered in 1881.
The prosecutrix was an accomplice witness as a matter of law for two reasons (a) the statute and (b) the allegations of the indictment.
The appellant was entitled to have the jury so instructed. This instruction was denied, over his protest.
The trial court deemed the facts sufficient to warrant the conclusion by the jury that the prosecutrix was not an accomplice witness.
It was the burden of the state to establish such facts, and in submitting that question to the jury the trial court should have so framed his charge.
In connection therewith, the jury should have been instructed to the effect that the accomplicity of the prosecutrix as a witness could not be destroyed by her uncorroborated testimony.
I dissent.