Court Opinion

ID: 9776130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:19:17.053127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:34.638033
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
Bizarre is a word that comes to mind when Texas law dictates that a statement by an accomplice under oath and subject to cross-examination must be corroborated, but an out-of-court statement by that same accomplice, unsworn and not subject to cross-examination, is sufficient evidence for conviction without corroboration. I recognize the holdings of the cited precedents on this issue, but to me this does not mesh with the long-established concepts of evidence and requirement for corroboration of the testimony of accomplice witnesses. The evidence being admitted is clearly a statement by an accomplice witness. The substance of the statement is not that of the party having heard the statement, but of the accomplice himself. The fact that the statement was not made in the courtroom does not add so much to its credibility that the need for corroboration is destroyed. I do not argue that this evidence cannot be admitted, but when admitted, it is in effect an out-of-court testimony of an accomplice. Surely, the Legislature did not mean to alter that basic principle by the use of that language.
Because there is other nonaccomplice evidence to support the conviction, I concur with the majority opinion.