Court Opinion

ID: 9777984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:29:31.171727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.911092
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TEAGUE, Judge.
Robert Lee Holladay, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, was charged by indictment and convicted by the jury of committing the offense of murder while in the course of committing the offense of robbery, which is the offense of capital murder. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 19.03(a)(2).
Because the jury answered in the negative the question whether there was a probability that the appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, the trial judge assessed the appellant’s punishment at life imprisonment. See Art. 37.071(b)(2), V.A.C.C.P.
On direct appeal, the appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. It is therefore sufficient for our purposes to only state that the facts of this cause reflect that Paul Joehlin met his untimely death when his neighbors, the appellant, Beverly Glock, Michael Keane, and Michael Kaiser, while in the course of robbing him, stabbed him many times in the chest, throat and lungs with a knife and a two-pronged meat fork.
The Houston First Court of Appeals, relying upon this Court’s decisions of County v. State, 668 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), and Fortenberry v. State, 579 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), as authority, sustained the appellant’s sole ground of error, that “The trial court erroneously overruled Appellant’s objection to the Court’s charge at the guilt phase of the trial which pointed out that the Court inadequately instructed the jury on the law with regard to accomplice testimony in capital murder cases,” and reversed the trial court’s judgment and sentence. See Holladay v. State, 682 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st] 1985).
This Court held in both County and Fortenberry, supra, that if a conviction for the offense of capital murder may be based upon testimony of an accomplice witness, and the defendant requests an instruction that the witness’ testimony must be corroborated as to the specific elements that make the crime of murder capital murder, the trial judge is required to give the instruction. In this instance, the record clearly reflects that the appellant’s trial counsel timely and properly objected to the trial judge’s refusal to include the above instruction in the charge to the jury.
We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review in order to make the determination whether the County and Fortenberry, supra, line of cases is still viable. We find that it is not, will expressly overrule those cases to the extent of any conflict with this opinion, and will reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The legal terms “accomplice” and “accomplice witness” are not specifically defined in the present Penal Code, which abolished all traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals. See V.T. C.A., Penal Code, Section 7.01(c). Today, the term “accomplice” includes all parti-cipes criminis, but those persons are now simply called “parties” to the offense. In light of the changes that the Legislature made in this part of the law when it enacted the present Penal Code, the term “accomplice witness” should be given a broad meaning. Easter v. State, 536 S.W.2d 223, 227, n. 4 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Also see Wil*196liams v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 399, 110 S.W. 63, 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1908); Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App.App.1974); Wade v. State, 367 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Orr v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 61 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1933); Williams v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 110 S.W. 63 (1908); MeQuarrie, “CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Evidence—Accomplice Testimony — Testimony of Accessory After the Fact Need Not Be Corroborated,” Case Note: 8 St. Mary’s Law Journal 381 (1976/1977).
In this instance, without objection, the trial judge defined the legal term “accomplice” as follows: “An accomplice, as that term is here used, means any person connected with the crime charged.” We find that this definition comports with the usual and ordinary meaning that is given that term, which is “one who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of the crime.” Black’s Law Dictionary 16 (1979 edition). By the very definition of the word “accomplice”, such a person who testifies for the prosecution is infamous and his testimony is considered so untrustworthy a conviction should not be based solely upon that testimony. Because such a witness is usually deemed to be corrupt, his testimony is always looked upon with suspicion. See Eckert v. State, 623 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Hoyle v. State, 4 Tex.App. 239 (1878); Greenleaf on Evidence (16th edition 1899); Greenleaf on Evidence (1858 edition); Phillips’ Treatise on Evidence (1849 edition); VII Wigmore on Evidence, Section 2056 (1978 edition).
Our Legislature, in enacting the provisions of Art. 38.14, V.A.C.C.P., which embody that statute’s precursors of 1856, 1879, 1895, 1911, and 1925, requires that before a conviction may rest upon an accomplice witness’ testimony, that testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect the accused with the crime. Thus, the Legislature has made the above beliefs law.
Kaiser testified for the State in this cause. Because Kaiser had been charged with committing the same offense as the appellant, as well as admitting being one of the parties primarily responsible for Joeh-lin’s death that occurred during the commission of a robbery, he was an accomplice witness as a matter of law. See Harris v. State, 645 S.W.2d 447 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Kerns v. State, 550 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Hendricks v. State, 508 S.W.2d 633 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Also see the cases collated under West criminal law key number 507(1).
The question that we must decide is just how detailed an instruction in a capital murder case, where the State relies upon the testimony of an accomplice witness to establish its case against the accused, must be given the jury in order to satisfy the provisions of Art. 38.14, supra, which provides:
A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.
The State argues that “Nowhere in Texas Code Crim.Pro. art. 38.14 (Vernon 1965) is it required that a particular element or group of elements be corroborated before a defendant may be convicted [of capital murder] on the basis of accomplice testimony. All that is required [under Art. 38.14] is that there be other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the offense.1 Taken to the extreme, the Court’s analysis would apply to an offense in which there is an aggravating element. There is no legislative justification for this approach.” As previously noted, there is no definition in *197the Penal Code for the term “accomplice”, nor is there one in the Code of Criminal Procedure. We agree in principle with the State’s arguments.
The record reflects that prior to the time that the trial judge read the charge to the jury, each juror was given a copy of the charge so that he could not only hear the judge read the charge but could also visually see what the judge was reading, which procedure we find is to be highly commended to the members of our trial judiciary.
The trial judge instructed the jury that Kaiser was an accomplice if an offense was committed.
She then instructed the jury that “[it could not] convict the Defendant upon [Kaiser’s] testimony unless [it] first believe[d] that his testimony is true and shows that the Defendant is guilty as charged, and then [it could not] convict the Defendant upon said testimony unless [it] further believe[d] that there [was] other testimony in the case, outside of the evidence of [Kaiser] tending to connect the Defendant with the offense committed, if [it found] that an offense was committed, and the corroboration [would not be] sufficient if it merely show[ed] the commission of the offense, but it must tend to connect the Defendant with its commission, and then from all of the evidence [the jury had to] believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant [was] guilty of the offense charged against him.” We find that this charge is patterned after the one found in McClung, Jury Charges for Texas Criminal Practice, pp. 225-226 (Rev.ed.1985).
The jury was also instructed on the offense of capital murder and was told that one of the ways that a person commits the offense of capital murder is if he commits the offense of murder under V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 19.02(a)(1), while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 19.03(a)(2).
The jury was further instructed on the offense of murder and was told that murder occurs if an individual intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another individual. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 19.-02(a)(1).
The jury was also instructed on the offenses of robbery and attempted robbery and given the definition of the term “bodily injury.” They were told that the offense of robbery occurs if an individual, in the course of committing the offense of theft, and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. V.T.C.A., Penal Code 29.02(a)(1). “Bodily injury” was defined to mean physical pain, illness or impairment of physical condition. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 1.07(7). The jury was told that the offense of attempted robbery occurs when a person, acting with the specific intent to commit theft, does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 15.01(a).
In the application paragraph on capital murder, the jury was instructed that “if [it found] from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Harris County, Texas, Robert Lee Holladay, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about December 31st, 1981, did then and there unlawfully while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the robbery of PAUL JOEHLIN, hereafter styled the Complainant, intentionally cause the death of the Complainant by stabbing the Complainant with a knife, hitting the Complainant with a bottle, or puncturing the Complainant with a meat fork, then [the jury would] find the Defendant guilty of capital murder. If [the jury did] not so find beyond a reasonable doubt, or if [it had] a reasonable doubt thereof, [it would] acquit the Defendant of capital murder and consider whether he is guilty of the offense of murder.”
We have carefully reviewed the jury arguments that were made in this cause by the respective attorneys and find that the attorneys spent little time in their arguments on the accomplice witness instructions that the trial judge had given the jury.
*198Many years ago, this Court’s predecessor, the Court of Appeals, in Hoyle v. State, 4 Tex.App. 239 (1878), stated that “it would serve no good purpose, or tend to enlighten the jury, to tell them that the accomplice must be corroborated in his statements in any ‘material matter.’ ” (245). A year later, that same Court, in Hozier v. State, 6 Tex.App. 501 (1879), remarked: “We do not think it was necessary for the court to have further instructed the jury as to what is meant by ‘corroborating evidence.’ The jury, it seems to us, needed no additional instruction as to the meaning of these words, for words of plainer import could not have been used.” (503).
Although the provisions of Art. 38.14, supra, are clear that the statute limits the effect that may be given the testimony of an accomplice, it does not define the terms in which an instruction to the jury shall be framed, see Slaughter v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 527, 218 S.W. 767, 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1920), and our research reveals that in virtually all of the cases that have interpreted either the provisions of Art. 38.14, supra, or its precursors, the issue that this Court and its predecessor Court was confronted with was whether the independent evidence that was adduced was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice and how much corroborating evidence was necessary. As previously pointed out, because the appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the testimony of Kaiser, the accomplice witness, we are not confronted in this cause with that issue.
In the past, when the provisions of Art. 38.14, supra, and its precursors, were implicated in a case, the charge to the jury was held sufficient if it: (1) defined the term accomplice; (2) gave the statutory inhibition against conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony; (3) stated that the corroboration must be as to some material matter tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense; and (4) applied the law to the facts. See, for example, Standfield v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 437, 208 S.W. 532, 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1919) (On rehearing). The requirement of materiality, however, has come and gone several times. Before the turn of the century, a jury charge need not have instructed that the corroboration relate to “some material matter.” Hozier v. State, supra. However, by the 1940’s, corroboration of “all material facts” was necessary. Botkin v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 165 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Cr.App.1942).
The appellant objected to the instruction in the charge requiring corroboration of the accomplice witness Kaiser on the ground that it was inadequate to protect his rights to a fair trial because it failed to relate the statutory corroboration requirement to the elements of the offense that made the offense of murder capital murder, i.e., he wanted the charge to read not only that the testimony of Kaiser should be corroborated as to the offense of murder, but also that Kaiser’s testimony going to the fact that the murder had occurred in the commission of a robbery also had to be corroborated.
We are unable to agree with the appellant that the above instruction was insufficient to protect his rights.
Art. 38.14, supra, clearly states that if any criminal conviction is dependent upon the testimony of an accomplice witness, such testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence that tends to connect the accused to the crime. The phrase “tending to connect” has the ordinary dictionary definition, “to serve, contribute or conduce in some degree or way ... to have a more or less direct bearing or effect,” and, while not contemplating conjecture, “has a tendency to prove the averments in the indictment.” Boone v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 374, 235 S.W. 580 (Tex.Cr.App.1922). As previously noted, the jury need not be given a definition for the phrase “corroborating evidence.” Under the statute, if the accomplice witness’ testimony merely shows the commission of the offense, it is insufficient corroboration.
In this instance, although we find that the instruction to the jury on the accom*199plice witness Kaiser’s testimony probably could have been stated more clearly and more detailed, we nevertheless find that it adequately instructed the jury that it could not convict the appellant of the offense of capital murder unless it found all of the following elements: (1) that the offense of capital murder, as defined in the court’s charge, had been committed, (2) that the testimony of Kaiser was truthful, (3) that Kaiser’s testimony showed that the appellant was guilty of the offense of capital murder, (4) that there was other evidence, outside of Kaiser’s testimony, that tended to connect the appellant to the commission of the offense of capital murder, and (5) that before it could find the appellant guilty of the offense of capital murder it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt, from all of the evidence, including the testimony of the accomplice witness, that the appellant was in fact guilty of committing the offense of capital murder. We find that this instruction was more than adequate to satisfy the requirements of Art. 38.14, supra.
As previously observed, we are not called upon to judge the sufficiency of the corroboration of the accomplice witness Kaiser’s testimony in this cause, although had we been given that duty we would have found the evidence sufficient, but, instead, we are called upon to judge whether the instruction on the accomplice witness Kaiser sufficiently protected the rights of the appellant as guaranteed under the law. We find that it did.
It is the duty of the trial judge to adequately instruct the jury on the applicable law. To require of an instruction more than was given in the case at bar might tend to please those who are admirers of verbosity, but that is not the task of a charge to the jury, which is to make sure that the jury is informed of what the law requires before a conviction can be inflicted on the presumptively innocent accused. We believe that in dealing with an instruction on an accomplice witness’ testimony it would be dysfunctional to impose upon trial judges a responsibility to separately identify each and every distinguishing element of a given crime in the corroboration paragraphs of the charge to the jury.
In this instance, when the charge to the jury is read as a whole, the instruction on the accomplice witness Kaiser was more than adequate to protect the appellant’s rights. The trial judge did not err in refusing to expressly require corroboration of the alleged robbery as well as the alleged murder in his instruction.
We acknowledge that our holding conflicts with this Court’s decisions of County and Fortenberry, supra. To the extent of any conflict, those cases are expressly overruled.
As previously pointed out, in County and Fortenberry, supra, this Court held that if a conviction for the offense of capital murder is based upon testimony of an accomplice witness, and the accused requests, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury that the accomplice witness’ testimony must be corroborated as to the specific elements that make the crime of murder capital murder. Because we now find that the foundation that supports Fortenberry, supra, is actually quicksand, to the extent of conflict, it is expressly overruled.
In Phillips’ Treatise on Evidence, supra, the following is pointed out: “It is clearly unnecessary that the accomplice should be confirmed in every circumstance which he details in evidence; for there would be no occasion to use him at all as a witness if his narrative could be completely proved by other evidence free from all suspicion.” It was also pointed out that a distinction lies between confirmation as to the circumstances of the offense and confirmation affecting the defendant’s connection to the offense. Confirmation merely as to the circumstances of the offense is really no confirmation at all. Confirmation as to the defendant’s connection to the offense, however, should be by independent evidence from which the jury may reasonably be satisfied, apart from the accomplice’s testimony, the defendant’s connection to the offense. In sum, before a conviction based upon an accomplice witness’ *200testimony may stand, the State’s evidence must tend to connect the defendant with the offense committed. It must be as to a material matter and must tend directly and immediately, not merely remotely, to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. Corroboration as to immaterial facts, having no tendency to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, is not sufficient. The corroboration must be as to a criminative fact or facts. But it need not be corroborative of any particular statement made by the accomplice. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense by some person; it must go further, and tend to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. The accomplice witness’ testimony need not be corroborated circumstantially and in detail, and if corroborated in material matters, it is unimportant that it was also corroborated in immaterial matters, as it is permissible to strengthen such testimony by proof of connected incidents tending to show its reasonableness and consistency. Also see Will-son’s, Texas Criminal Statutes, Sections 2454 and 2455 (1888 edition).
In sum, where the State relies upon an accomplice witness’ testimony to convict the accused for a particular offense, the accomplice witness’ testimony must be both material and must be corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect the accused with that offense. As to whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness, such must, of course, be decided on an ad hoc basis.
Fortenberry, supra, is founded upon this Court’s decisions that, in judging the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence in seduction cases and knowingly receiving stolen property cases, this Court placed a heavy burden upon the State. These statutes are no longer in our present Penal Code.
In interpreting the provisions of former Article 505 (1925 Penal Code), the seduction statute, which had three elements, namely, a promise to marry, carnal knowledge, and the female had to be under the age of 25 years, when the State’s ease was based upon the testimony of an accomplice witness, this Court required that an accomplice witness’ testimony had to be corroborated as to two of the elements, promise to marry and carnal knowledge of the female. Slaughter v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 527, 218 S.W. 767 (Tex.Cr.App.1920); Ice v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 509, 208 S.W. 343 (1919), but cf. Nash v. State, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 259, 134 S.W. 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1911). Our research has yet to reveal a decision by either this Court or this Court’s predecessor in which reasons why the Courts adhered to this requirement are stated. Perhaps it lies in the fact that for many years a seduced female was an incompetent witness as a matter of law. See Art. 1550, Section 3, 1859 Code of Criminal Procedure. Also see Cole v. State, 40 Tex. 147 (1874). The reason may also lie in the fact that corroboration in seduction cases was governed by a special statute and not the general statute governing corroboration of an accomplice witness, thus requiring the courts to require more in the form of a charge on accomplice witness testimony, even though the statute did not specify which elements of the offense of seduction needed support outside of the accomplice witness’ testimony-
This Court, also for reasons never explicated, required more than general corroboration when it came to the offense of knowingly receiving stolen property, see Art. 1430 (1925 Penal Code), and the State’s conviction was based upon an accomplice witness’ testimony. This Court held that a conviction for such offense could not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless the testimony was corroborated both as to the theft and as to the knowing receipt or concealment of the stolen property. See e.g., Cagle v. State, 505 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and Johnson v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 496, 164 S.W.2d 702 (App.1942). Contrary to the offense of seduction, the knowingly receiving stolen property statute did not specially require corroboration. There is no longer such an *201offense in Texas. See McClain v. State, 687 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).
Just recently, a majority of this Court in Richardson v. State, 700 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), held that V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 15.03(b), which proscribes the offense of solicitation, “is analogous to Art. 38.14, V.A.C.C.P., and should be read in conjunction with it.” (594). Thus, notwithstanding the fact that under the solicitation statute we have a special provision governing corroboration of an accomplice witness, the present policy of this Court is that a corroboration provision within a penal statute does not require any greater instruction on corroboration than the general corroboration statute. Also see Aston v. State, 656 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), another solicitation case, in which this Court held: “Whatever the continued viability of the Fortenberry line of cases, we decline to apply those cases to the instant case.” (456).
The seduction and knowingly receiving stolen property decisions of this Court make it obvious to us that as a matter of ' policy, in judging whether the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice witness, this Court required more of the State to sustain a conviction based upon accomplice witness testimony than mere corroborating testimony to the commission of the offense itself. But, is there a need in a capital murder case for an instruction more detailed than the one given in this cause?
We now return to Fortenberry v. State, supra, in which this Court held that where the offense was capital murder and the State’s case was based upon accomplice witness’ testimony, the trial judge had to instruct the jury that the accomplice witness’ testimony had to be corroborated as to the specific element that made the crime of murder capital murder.
Although counsel for the defendant For-tenberry, supra, presented to this Court 90 grounds of error for review, in none of them did he challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice witness as to all of the elements of the offense of capital murder. The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of capital murder, murder by knowingly killing a peace officer. The only evidence that the State had to establish that the appellant knew that the victim was a peace officer was the testimony of an accomplice witness. Of course, had this Court held that the evidence was insufficient on the element of knowing that the victim was a peace officer, this would have precluded the State from retrying the defendant for the offense of capital murder.
The Court, however, declined to address the sufficiency of the evidence issue, but, instead, addressed the question whether the instruction on the accomplice witness was inadequate because it failed to instruct the jury on the specific elements that made the offense of murder capital murder, i.e., knowledge on the part of the defendant that he knew the victim was a peace officer, which was never corroborated outside of the accomplice witness’ testimony, and held that such an instruction was required. County, supra, merely reaffirmed Fortenberry, supra. Also see McManus v. State, 591 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Duff-Smith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Granger v. State, 683 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); and Izaguirre v. State, 695 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985).
Thus, the main flaw in the Fortenberry, supra, opinion lies in the fact that in not addressing the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, as to an element of the offense of capital murder, the Court chose to engraft onto the capital murder statute a requirement that the statute did not then nor now require.
In this instance, the jury was instructed that before it could find the appellant guilty of the offense of capital murder, it had to find (1) that the offense itself had been committed; (2) that the accomplice witness Kaiser’s testimony was truthful; (3) that Kaiser’s testimony itself showed that the appellant was guilty of the offense of capital murder; (4) that there was other evidence, outside of Kaiser’s testimony, *202that tended to connect the appellant to the commission of the offense of capital murder; and (5) from all of the evidence, including the accomplice witness’ testimony, it believed that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing the offense of capital murder.
We find that this instruction was more than adequate to satisfy the requirements of the provisions of Art. 38.14, supra, and it was not necessary for the trial judge to give a more detailed instruction on the accomplice witness Kaiser’s testimony. All cases in conflict with our holding are expressly overruled.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.

. In Thompson v. State, 691 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), this Court stated "[t]he ‘accomplice witness rule’ in Art. 38.14, supra, is a legislative creation not required by the common law, Bailey v. State, [100 Tex.Cr.R. 110] 271 S.W. 627 (1925), or as a matter of federal constitutional law. See, e.g., Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed.2d 442 (1917); United States v. DeLarosa, 450 F.2d 1057, (3rd Cir.1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 927, 92 S.Ct. 978, 30 L.Ed.2d 800 (1972).” (Our footnote.)