Wade v. State, 35441

Decision Date20 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 35441,35441
Citation367 S.W.2d 337
PartiesVerna WADE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Musslewhite & Hallmark, by R. C. Musslewhite, Lufkin, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is offering a bribe to a juror; the punishment, 2 years.

One Thelma Whitaker was a member of a jury in a civil suit being tried in the District Court of Nacogdoches County with the Honorable James H. Moore presiding. During the course of the trial, Judge Moore declared a mistrial 'because certain jury tampering had been going on' and immediately questioned each member of the jury separately as to whether anyone had attempted to talk to them about the case. While discussing the matter with Mrs. Whitaker, he told her that it was her duty to tell him if anyone had contacted her about the case and that if such had occurred and she failed to tell him about it she might be an accomplice. She answered at that time that no one had said anything to her about the case and that she had not been contacted about it. She later gave as her reason for telling the judge an untruth that 'one of my best friends was involved and I was trying to protect her.'

Sometime lated that day, Mrs. Whitaker returned to the judge's chambers and told him 'that I hadn't told him the truth the first time,' and the judge advised her that the grand jury would probably want to talk to her about the matter. When the grand jury convened, Mrs. Whitaker identified appellant as being the person who had offered her a bribe. On the same evening after Mrs. Whitaker was advised by the judge that a grand jury investigation would probably take place, she told appellant that she had reported the offer of the bribe to the judge but had not given him appellant's name and would not do so 'unless she had to.'

Suffice it to say that the State's case is made to depend upon the testimony of Mrs. Whitaker, and we are met at the outset with the question of whether Mrs. Whitaker was an accomplice witness whose testimony must be corroborated. Over proper objection, the trial court refused to submit the question of whether Mrs. Whitaker was an accomplice witness.

In construing Article 718, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., which provides that a conviction may not be sustained upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, it has been said, 'The point most often misunderstood by the bar is that the word 'accomplice' in the above statute has been held to mean 'principal, accomplice or accessory.' No matter what category the witness may fall into, the same degree of corroboration is required.'*

Mere concealment of knowledge that the crime has been committed does not make the person having such knowledge an accomplice witness. Steen v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 100 S.W.2d 109.

The mere fact that a witness denied knowledge of the crime does not make him an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Easter v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 28, 1976
    ...it is also true the mere fact that a witness denied knowledge of a crime does not make him or her an accomplice witness. Wade v. State, 367 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). A witness is not deemed an accomplice witness because he or she knew of the crime but failed to disclose it or even conce......
  • Holladay v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 7, 1986
    ...53 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 399, 110 S.W. 63, 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1908); Singletary v. State, 509 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App.App.1974); Wade v. State, 367 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Orr v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 61 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Cr.App.1933); Williams v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 396, 110 S.W. 63 (1908); Mc......
  • Gamez v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 23, 1987
    ...supra, at p. 225; Carrillo v. State, supra. See also Villarreal v. State, supra; Russell v. State, supra. See also Wade v. State, 367 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1963); Walker v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 501, 196 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1946); Herndon v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 232, 198 S.W. 788 The evid......
  • Oliver v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 16, 1977
    ...And see generally Anno., 28 A.L.R.2d 857 (1953).3 Although it bears a superficial resemblance to this case, the case of Wade v. State, 367 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), is distinguishable. In Wade, the record makes it obvious, as does the opinion, that the witness knew the appellant was gui......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT