
    CROSSLY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 28, 1912.)
    Criminal Law (§ 913) — New Trial — Confession by Codefendant.
    No error is shown in refusing accused a new trial, claimed on a showing that a codefend-ant had pleaded guilty and had stated that he would make a confession exonerating accused, since, by pleading guilty and accepting sentence,' the codefendant disqualified himself as a wit-' ness, and since, through the absence of a showing as to what evidence was offered on the trial, it cannot be said that accused’s guilt was not overwhelmingly established.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2136-2145; Dec. Dig. § 913.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris-County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Terry Crossly was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.'
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary; his punishment being assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. There is an affidavit, attached to the motion for new trial, alleging, in substance, that a co-defendant was convicted or pleaded guilty for the offense of which appellant was convicted, and that Kemper pleaded guilty before the conviction of appellant. The affidavits, in substance, show that Kemper, in agreeing to plead guilty, had stated that he would make such a statement in his confession of guilt as would exonerate the defendant. How this could be of service to appellant upon another trial we do not fully understand. Kemper, having plead guilty and accepted the sentence, thereby became disqualified as a witness, and would be in the penitentiary. But, even if he had made the statement exonerating the defendant on his confession of guilt, we do not see how exactly this could be used as evidence for the defendant. What the evidence for the state was we are unable to say, in the absence of the facts. It may have been overwhelming that defendant was connected with the burglary, and in fact committed it.

In the attitude of the record as presented to us, we find no merit in this proposition, and the judgment, therefore, is affirmed.  