# 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/9761334

## 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:** Concurrence by Morrison
- **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/9761334

## Opinion text

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
Since the rendition of our original opinion herein the Supreme Court of the United States has decided several pertinent cases (which are set forth in my brother Onion’s opinion) which have caused me to reappraise my original disposition of appellant’s fourth and fifth contentions on appeal and to consider the objection made at trial, but raised only inferentially in this Court on original submission, that the admission of the confessions of the principals deprived this appellant of the right to confrontation.
Although it is true that Bruton and the other cases cited by Judge Onion are not, as is this case, a case “where on trial of the defendant it becomes necessary to show *944 the guilt of another” 1 it is clear to me that the rationale of Bruton and the other cases would bring about a reversal of this conviction by said Court. This is especially true because the State was armed with ample evidence outside of the confession of the principal to show the principal’s guilt, as is shown in the original opinion.
Having so concluded, I must join in the order of this Court overruling the State’s motion for rehearing.
. Louvier v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 167, at 170 , 305 S.W.2d 574, at 577 ; 24 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 669.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761334. Public record. Not legal advice.