Chapman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Chapman v. State

446 S.W.2d 326, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 889

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 29, 1969

DocketNo. 41812

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 S.W.2d 326 (Chapman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapman v. State, 446 S.W.2d 326, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 889 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is accomplice to robbery; the punishment, twenty years. This is a companion case to Odom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 912, but the facts even though necessarily the same were presented in a far different manner. In Odom v. State, supra, we held that Angelia Ger-ring (Campbell) was an accomplice witness. In the case at bar the Court failed over proper and timely objection to instruct the jury as a matter of law that such witness was an accomplice and failed to submit the question to the jury of her ac-compliceship as a matter of fact.

Stephenson v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 624, 216 S.W.2d 586, and cases there cited require a reversal of this conviction.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is accomplice to robbery; the punishment, twenty years. This is a companion case to Odom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 912, but the facts even though necessarily the same were presented in a far different manner. In Odom v. State, supra, we held that Angelia Ger-ring (Campbell) was an accomplice witness. In the case at bar the Court failed over proper and timely objection to instruct the jury as a matter of law that such witness was an accomplice and failed to submit the question to the jury of her ac-compliceship as a matter of fact.

Stephenson v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 624, 216 S.W.2d 586, and cases there cited require a reversal of this conviction.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 S.W.2d 326, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack