# Selman v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 17, 1991 · 807 S.W.2d 310

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858016

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Joe SELMAN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 17, 1991
- **Citations:** 807 S.W.2d 310; 1991 WL 32395
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Miller
- **Judges:** McCormick, Miller, Maloney
- **Cited by:** 39 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/9858016

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858016. Public record. Not legal advice.