“[A]ccomplice-witness testimony must be corroborated . . . only when the State calls the witness and seeks to rely on such witness’s 10 testimony.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A]ccomplice-witness testimony must be corroborated . . . only when the State calls the witness and seeks to rely on such witness’s 10 testimony.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
The majority correctly reiterates the doctrine that “testimony elicited from a witness called by the accused and offered by the accused is not accomplice-witness testimony which must be corroborated as contemplated under Article 38.14, Y.A.C.C.P.,” majority opinion, page 311. I note we are not called upon, because neither party has raised the issue, to consider the continued viability of the doctrine vis-a-vis Tex.R. Crim.Evid. 607 abolishing the “voucher” rule. Russeau v. State, 785 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). It may be that in a given situation, such as one where the State on cross examination brings out the incriminating accomplice testimony, the defendant would be entitled to an accomplice witness charge in light of the shift from previous rules of evidence brought on by Rule 607, among others.
MALONEY, J., joins.