Court Opinion

ID: 9757656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:52:14.221452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:42.277999
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice
concurring.
Under the authority of Billups, an instruction defining what an accomplice is and a generic accomplice-witness instruction under article 38.14 should have been given. Billups v. State, 46 S.W.2d 973 (Tex. Crim. App. 1932); Tex. Code CRIM. Peoc. Ann. art 38.14 (Vernon 2005).
Under the authority of Herron, the failure to give the instruction was some harm. Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
I concur in the judgment of the majority.
Any further discussion in the majority opinion about what should have been included in the charge and what the jury could or could not do based upon its determination of whether Bundrandt or Sneed *752were accomplices I do not join, because it is unsupported by the statute (art. 38.14), or the case law, is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal, and is merely an advisory opinion which we have no jurisdiction to render.