Maples v. State

• Decision Date: 26 October 1910
• Citation: 131 S.W. 567
• Parties: MAPLES v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

131 S.W. 567

MAPLES v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 26, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.

Jim Maples was convicted of offering to bribe a witness, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

McGrady & McMahon, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of offering to bribe one Woodard.

The evidence discloses that Woodard had been a witness before the grand jury against appellant in regard to some cases growing out of alleged violations of the local option law. He testifies that appellant came to his house one night, and was in a room where he and his wife were sitting, and said to Woodard that he wanted to talk with him. They went out to the rear of the house on the back steps, where the conversation occurred. In this conversation Woodard testified appellant offered him finally the sum of $80 to leave the country and not appear against him as a witness. Mrs. Woodard testifies that she wanted to know what was going on and went to the back door, partially opened it, and heard appellant offer her husband $80 to leave the country. Without going into details, this is the substance of the state's case. Appellant's evidence from several witnesses is to the effect that he was at home on that particular night and retired early on account of his not being well. He is sustained in this by several witnesses who show that his sister-in-law was at his house at the time on a visit. Her husband had been notified, and he had come to Bonham in answer to a telegram announcing the illness of his wife. His wife and mother-in-law were also present. Their testimony is all to the effect that he was at home that night and did not go to Woodard's nor leave the residence during the night. This is the substance of appellant's side of the case.

1. It is insisted that under this showing the court was in error in submitting the issue of alibi for the reason the alibi assumed that an offense was committed, and counsel for appellant, in a very able and ingenious brief, draw the distinction between this and the ordinary case where the question of alibi should be submitted. His proposition is that "alibi is not in any case where the corpus delicti cannot be established without establishing the defendant's guilt. In a case like this, where there could have been no offense committed unless the appellant committed it, there can be no such thing as alibi in the case." His argument is that it is unlike a case where an offense is shown such as murder or theft and the question who committed it is an issue; that in such case as murder or theft where the homicide or theft is shown it does not necessarily involve guilt of the defendant; that his testimony or the testimony in the case might show or raise the issue that he was not present, or that some other party committed the offense in either case without the intervention or participation of the accused; and that in all such cases the charge should present the question to the jury. In this case, however, there could have been no violation of the law without the presence of the accused and the offer to bribe. My Brethren are of opinion that the point is not well taken and that the charge is favorable to the appellant.

2. Among other grounds of the motion for new trial, appellant alleges that the private prosecuting counsel in the case, a notary public, had no authority to...