Coleman v. State

• Citation: 44 Tex. 109
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 01 January 1875
• Parties: JULIA COLEMAN v. THE STATE.

44 Tex. 109

JULIA COLEMAN

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.

APPEAL from Red River. Tried below before the Hon. James Q. Chenoweth, Judge of the Criminal Court of the city of Clarksville.

Julia Coleman, Jake Mitchell, and Emily Williams were jointly indicted for the theft of a pocket-book, containing money and notes, the property of and from the house of J. H. Masterson. The defendants, Coleman and Williams, were arrested, and asking a severance, Julia Coleman was put upon trial. Emily Williams was examined as a witness for the State, and upon her testimony it was shown that she and defendant had been washing and ironing at Masterson's, and on the second day of such employment witness, at request of defendant, had taken the pocket-book, which had money, as described in the indictment, and notes in it; that witness delivered the pocket-book to defendant; that on their way home Jake Mitchell joined them; that they had burned the notes at a log fire on their way home; that defendant kept all the money and gave witness the empty pocket-book, having offered her some of the money; that she concealed the pocket-book.

Masterson and others testified to Jake Mitchell's confessions that the defendant, who was his mother, had the money; that Jake Mitchell had showed where the money was buried in the house of defendant; that all the money but some nickels had been found where Jake Mitchell told them the money was concealed. The notes were never found. It was in evidence that defendant and Emily Williams had been engaged at work in the room from which the pocket-book was taken.

Counsel moved to exclude the testimony of the witness Williams, because not corroborated by evidence connecting defendant with the theft.

The court was asked to instruct the jury on the mitigation of the punishment when committed by a domestic, which was refused, “because there was no testimony to warrant it.”

Defendant was convicted, and her punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. Motion for new trial was overruled, and she appealed.

W. J. Swain and S. A. Sims, for appellant, cited Paschal's Dig., arts. 2381, 3118, 3126; 1 Greenl. Ev., secs. 31, 214, 219, 233, 280; 1 Phil. Ev., p. 313; 2 Stark. Ev., secs. 25 to 31; Draper v. State, 22 Tex., 400;Lopez v. State, 34 Tex., 133;Hightower v. State, 22 Tex., 605;Ake v. State, 31 Tex., 416.

A. J. Peeler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

GOULD, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

It is not enough that the evidence of an accomplice be corroborated by other testimony as to one of several parties charged with the offense; the confirmation should be “on some fact which goes to fix the guilt on the particular person” on trial. (Rex v. Wilkes, 7 Car. & P., 272; Rosc. Cr. Ev., p. --; Paschal's Dig., art. 3118; Arch. Cr. Prac. and Pl., p. 154; People v. Davis, 21 Wend., 313.)

That the purse was found where the accomplice said it was concealed “does not affect the prisoner more than any one else.” (7 Car. & P., supra.)

That another defendant disclosed that the stolen money was concealed on premises where he and Julia Coleman both lived, is a fact which may show the guilt of the party making the disclosure, but does not of itself tend to show the guilty knowledge of the co-occupant of the premises, though that person be his mother. It does not appear that Julia Coleman either knew or had opportunity of knowing that the money was buried where it was. It does appear that Jake Mitchell, who made the disclosure, had such...