concluding evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of aggravated robbery when, among other things, there was no evidence that “appellant was ever in possession of [a weapon]”
How later courts described this case
- concluding evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of aggravated robbery when, among other things, there was no evidence that “appellant was ever in possession of [a weapon]”
- reversing conviction when evidence showed that defendant committed murder but was “not sufficient to establish corpus delicti of aggravated robbery”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DUGGAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
I agree with the majority that the corpus delicti of an offense may be proved “by circumstances as well as by direct evidence,” citing White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851, 864 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), and that “supplementary evidence [of an offense necessary to corroborate an extrajudicial admission] need not be conclusive in its character but must support each element of the corpus delecti,” citing Self v. State, 513 S.W.2d 832, 836-37 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). Maj. op. at 805.
However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the State in our case has failed to produce any evidence, independent of appellant’s extrajudicial admissions, that appellant’s conduct occurred “in the course of committing theft.”
Admittedly, conduct committed “in the course of committing theft” is not shown in every scene where a woman’s purse is found laying on a floor, open and inverted, containing 75 cents in change and a matchbox holding eight “rocks” of cocaine. However, I believe human experience tells us that “conduct in the course of committing theft” is strongly indicated when, in addition to the purse, the scene also includes both (1) the dead body of the woman who owns the purse, lying on the floor of her kitchen with a gunshot wound through her head, and (2) evidence of a struggle throughout her kitchen and living room.
I believe that evidence of the latter scene, which is present in this case, is corroboration of appellant’s extrajudicial admission of the crime sufficient to sustain a conviction.
I would overrule appellant’s second point of error and affirm his conviction.