# Gribble v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 20, 1991 · 808 S.W.2d 65

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773258

## Case

- **Full name:** Timothy Lane GRIBBLE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 20, 1991
- **Citations:** 808 S.W.2d 65; 1990 WL 176369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Campbell
- **Judges:** Teague, Miller, Campbell, White, McCormick, Berchelmann, Sturns
- **Cited by:** 210 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/9773258

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, in capital murder case involving corpus delicti of kidnapping, “[w]hile there is little, apart from appellant’s confession, to suggest that . . . the deceased[] was moved from her residence without her consent and while still alive to the place where her body was…
- concluding, in case involving capital murder committed in the course of a kidnapping, that corpus delicti of kidnapping was established based on the lack of motive to move the deceased’s body from her home, the lack of evidence of a struggle in the deceased’s home, and the dis…
- stating: “Indeed, when evidence independent of the confession is alone sufficient to prove corpus delicti, the jury need not even be instructed that an extrajudicial confession must be corroborated.”
- holding that the State adequately proved the corpus delicti of kidnapping even though the facts were “ambiguous in some respects and far from adequate to support the conclusions they impl[ied]”
- observing that "the [corroboration or corpus delicti] rule peremptorily reduces the weight of admissible evidence for policy reasons originated by this Court without express legislative sanction," and so the quantum of independent corroborating evidence need not be great

## Opinion text

MILLER and CAMPBELL, JJ.,
with re-
gard to the requested “mitigation charges” that are contained in footnote 3 of the majority opinion, believe that the one labeled “(Point 17)” is the best of the options that were given the trial judge under the “punishment” facts that went to appellant’s “personal culpability.” Furthermore, in the treatment of appellant’s point of error # 12, they concur in the result only. With these remarks, they join the majority opinion.
WHITE, J., concurs in the result.
McCORMICK, P.J., and BERCHELMANN and STURNS, JJ., dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773258. Public record. Not legal advice.