Opinion
No. 05-00-01264-CR.
Opinion Filed April 9, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F99-72936-KI. Affirmed.
Before Justices WRIGHT, FITZGERALD and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bobby Brown appeals his conviction for delivery of cocaine. After the jury found appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at 25 years' confinement and a $25,000 fine. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that Patrick Williams was an accomplice as a matter of law. A conviction cannot rest on the testimony of an accomplice without corroborating evidence that connects the defendant with the crime. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 79). The general policy behind the accomplice witness rule is that the accomplice is a discredited witness, and his testimony is to be carefully scrutinized because he may have an interest in the outcome of the trial and may be a corrupt source. Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423, 429 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). However, article 38.14 does not apply to out-of-court statements by an accomplice because an out-of-court statement is not "testimony" within the meaning of article 38.14, and it does not require corroborating evidence. Bingham v. State, 913 S.W.2d 208, 213 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (op. on reh'g). Because Williams did not testify in this case, we cannot conclude the trial court erred by refusing to give an accomplice witness instruction. See id. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.