Windham v. State, 44927

Decision Date03 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 44927,44927
Citation479 S.W.2d 319
PartiesHal Dean WINDHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Bill Thomas, of Glenn & Thomas, Abilene, for appellant.

Ed Paynter, Dist. Atty., and Sam Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Abilene, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is cattle theft; the punishment, enhanced under Article 62, Vernon's Ann.P.C., ten (10) years.

Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Johnny Robert Windham, who the court charged was an accomplice witness as a matter of law, testified that he, the appellant and another man named R. L. Goble, stole seven or eight head of cattle from Cecil Goble. He stated that on the afternoon in late January, 1970, on a day and date he could not recall, the appellant and R. L. Goble approached him at work and asked him to 'help them.' He left work with them. R. L. Goble then went and borrowed his father's yellow pickup after which the trio borrowed Hollis Parmelly's stock trailer. Later that evening, they stole the cattle and loaded them on the trailer and started to Waco. However, an axle on the trailer soon broke and the appellant borrowed another trailer from W. O. Elliott before the three continued on to Waco where he (the witness) and Goble 'consigned' the animals to a stock auction the next morning. The witness further testified that he received $50.00 for his services several days later when Goble and appellant brought the money to him at his job.

Under Article 38.14, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., 1 the testimony of an accomplice witness must be corroborated. The test of the sufficiency of such corroboration is to eliminate the evidence of the accomplice from consideration and then to examine the evidence of other witnesses to determine if there is inculpatory evidence, evidence of an incriminating nature which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. Colunga v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 866 (1972). Merely showing an offense occurred is not sufficient. Odom v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,438 S.W.2d 912; Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 629. The corroborative testimony need not supply direct evidence; it must only tend to connect appellant with the crime. Cherb v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 273. It is the combined cumulative weight of the evidence furnished by non-accomplice witnesses which supplies the test. Minor v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 299 S.W. 422.

Appellant did not testify.

Cecil Goble testified that eight head of his cattle were stolen between January 26 and January 31, 1970.

R. A. Goble stated he loaned his son a yellow pickup, License #124389, sometime in late January, 1970 and that he had done so before.

Hollis Parmelly recited that the appellant, accompanied by Goble and Johnny Robert Windham, borrowed his stock trailer, as he had on other occasions, near the end of January, 1970.

W. O. Elliott testified that in late January, 1970, at about 10:00 at night the appellant, in the company of others whom he did not see, borrowed his stock trailer stating that one belonging to some of his friends had broken down. Elliott stated that they left the trailer at his house and that it was picked up the next day. In describing the person who came to get the trailer the next day, the witness said, 'I don't know. They said it was a Goble boy.'

Mack Owen recited that R. L. Goble brought a trailer with a broken axle to his automotive shop to be fixed at the beginning of 1970 but that he was unable to take the job because he was too busy.

Wade Ray testified that he fixed a broken wheel axle on Hollis Parmelly's trailer for the appellant in the latter part of January, 1970.

Dezzie Leggott stated he operated a livestock auction in Waco and produced a gate receipt showing that on January 27, 1970 'Hal Williams' driving a car, License No. 124389, consigned eight head of cattle to him for sale. He further testified that a check for $1178.69, the selling price of the livestock, made out to 'Hal Williams' was later given to the individual who presented the gate receipt.

Wanda Bevins, a teller at the Bank of Commerce in Abilene, stated that on January 28, 1970, R. L. Goble and another man drove up to the bank's drive-in window and deposited three checks, one of which was made out to 'Hal Williams' in the amount of $1178.69. She stated that Goble first endorsed it with his name but then handed it to the man with him after she informed him that 'Hal Williams'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • McManus v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 5, 1979
    ...Further, the mere showing that an offense occurred is not sufficient corroboration. Carrillo v. State, supra; Windham v. State, 479 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). It is not necessary that the corroboration directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish guilt, ......
  • Paulus v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 28, 1981
    ...the accused with the commission of the offense supplies the test. Perkins v. State, 450 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Windham v. State, 479 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Colunga v. State, 481 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). It is not necessary that the corroboration directly link the accused ......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 27, 1983
    ...the accused with the commission of the offense supplies the test. Perkins v. State, 450 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Windham v. State, 479 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Colunga v. State, 481 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). It is not necessary that the corroboration directly link the accused ......
  • Colella v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 11, 1995
    ...at 563-564. Thus, proof of suspicious circumstances will not satisfy the requisites of art. 38.14. Id.; and, Windham v. State, 479 S.W.2d 319, 321-322 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). A. Under art. 38.14 the State was required to corroborate Red's testimony, that is, to produce independent evidence tendi......
  • 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