Court Opinion

ID: 9648957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:39:28.114828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:06.736682
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, it is now contended that the indictment is insufficient because it does not directly allege that the appellant acted with malice aforethought.
Article 70, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., under which the appellant was charged, provides, in part:
“An accomplice is one who is not present at the commission of an offense, but *863who, before the act is done, advises, commands or encourages another to commit the offense * * *.”
Reliance is had on Willson’s Criminal Forms, 7th Ed., Section 2319, Note 3, where it is suggested that in a murder prosecution the words “voluntarily and of his malice aforethought” should be inserted after the words “unlawfully and wilfully” in that paragraph of the indictment alleging one to be an accomplice.
No case has been cited which holds that the failure to allege malice aforethought on the part of the accomplice in addition to that of the principal is fatal to the indictment.
In Aston v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 122 S.W.2d 1073, that part of the indictment alleging Aston to be an accomplice is as follows:
“And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, present in said court, that Doc Aston, on or about the 1st day of October, A.D.1937, prior to the commission of the said offense by the said Leonard D. Bullock as aforesaid, in the county and state aforesaid, did unlawfully and wilfully advise, command and encourage the said Leonard D. Bullock to commit said offense; the said Doc Aston not being present at the commission of said offense by the said Leonard D. Bullock.”
The indictment according to the papers on file in this Court shows that Bullock, the principal, was charged with assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought. In Aston, the Court stated, “A valid indictment should charge the principal with the crime and the accomplice with the statutory acts constituting him an accomplice.” The Court reversed Aston on other grounds but stated, “We disclaim any intention of holding the indictment insufficient.”
In the present case the indictment properly charged Mullane with murder with malice aforethought. It also charged the appellant with statutory acts constituting him an accomplice in that he did unlawfully and wilfully encourage Mullane to commit “said offense” (which refers to murder with malice aforethought) and that the offense was committed when the appellant was not present.
The malice was alleged to be in Mullane. The appellant encouraged Mullane and became an accomplice when the offense of murder with malice was completed.
We hold that the indictment is sufficient to charge appellant as an accomplice to the crime of murder with malice aforethought.
This cause was properly disposed of on the original submission.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.