Summary
In Hinson v. State, 152 Tex.Crim. 159, 211 S.W.2d 750 (1948), for example, this Court called the appellant's criminal acts "repulsive," yet overturned his conviction for sodomizing a juvenile because the victim, a "small boy," was an accomplice whose testimony was uncorroborated.
Summary of this case from Blake v. StateOpinion
No. 24067.
June 2, 1948.
1. — Accomplice — Corroboration Required.
In a prosecution for sodomy, on a human being who consented to the act, such person is an accomplice and the law requires corroboration of the accomplice's testimony.
2. — Evidence — Insufficient.
The evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense charged.
Sodomy. Appeal from District Court of Potter County; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
Hon. Henry S. Bishop, Judge Presiding.
Reversed and cause remanded.
Reynold M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was given a five year sentence in the penitentiary on a conviction for sodomy.
It will not be necessary to discuss the repulsive evidence in the case. A small boy was involved. Under his statement of what occurred he is an accomplice. His testimony was not corroborated by any fact or circumstance, so far as proof of the corpus delicti is concerned. To the contrary, two policemen to whom the matter was first reported by the boy's father quoted the lad as giving statements contradictory to that testified to by him on he witness stand. According to the statement which he made to the two policemen, the accused had attempted to commit the offense but the boy said he ran away before it was committed. He contradicted himself on further material matters.
The law requires that the evidence of an accomplice be corroborated and the instant case is a good example for the necessity that it be done. While the accused did not acquit himself in a commendable manner as a witness, he did produce several witnesses who testified to his good reputation. If we eliminate the evidence which the accomplice witness gave there is nothing that would cast even a suspicion that appellant had committed the offense charged.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.