Summary
In Walker, supra (1981), presiding Judge Onion, without dissent, held that the rule of law was clearly established that the accomplice witness need not be corroborated in all of his testimony and the corroboration need not directly link the accused to the crime, nor did the corroboration evidence need to be sufficient in and of itself to establish guilt.
Summary of this case from Mumphrey v. StateOpinion
No. 7710.
Decided June 6, 1923.
Theft — Companion Case — Insufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of theft, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, following a companion case.
Appeal from the District Court of Comanche. Tried below before the Honorable J.R. McClellan.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R.G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Conviction is for felony theft with punishment of two years in the penitentiary.
This is a companion case to that of Rowe Walker, No. 7709, this day decided. The facts in the two cases are practically identical. We find no testimony of any character in the instant case which tends remotely to connect appellant with the offense charged against him outside the testimony of the accomplice witness Howard.
For the same reasons stated in the companion case the judgment in this case must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.