# Schepps v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 15, 1968 · 432 S.W.2d 926

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761331

## Case

- **Full name:** Mair J. SCHEPPS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 15, 1968
- **Citations:** 432 S.W.2d 926
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Woodley
- **Judges:** Belcher, Dice, Morrison, Onion, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761331

## Opinion text

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge
(dissenting)-
While I have some doubt as to other grounds of error, I am unable to agree that reversible error is shown in ground of error Nos. 4 or 5.
Appellant objected to the refusal of the court to grant his request to excise the *938 portions of the confessions of the principals which referred to either Mair Schepps or the House of Tobacco.
Smith v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 15 , 237 S.W. 265, 267 , holds: “Statements in the confession which might relate solely to the guilt of the accomplice, and which throw no light on the principal’s actions, should be excluded.”
The Smith case is also authority for the proposition that elimination which would render the confession incomplete and fragmentary is not required and that all of the confession necessary to connect the principal in an orderly way with the transaction could he used.
The Smith case further holds:
“The fact that interwoven in the confession were expressions connecting appellant (the defendant on trial for being an accomplice) with the acts of the principal (who made the confession) would not render the statement nonavailable to the state. The same would be ■ true though the statement tended to corroborate the testimony of some witness. These hurtful matters must be controlled by proper instructions to the jury limiting the purpose of the confession to establishing the principal’s guilt.”
As may be seen from the above, the admissibility of the entire confession of the principal does not depend upon whether all of the statements therein are necessary to show the guilt of the principal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761331. Public record. Not legal advice.