
    SHREWDER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 7, 1910.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1911.)
    Criminal Daw (§ 780*) — Testimony of Accomplice — Instructions.
    An instruction that a conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless the jury first believes the accomplice’s evidence is true, and that it shows or tends to show guilt, etc., is erroneous, because th'e testimony of the accomplice must do more than merely tend to show guilt.
    [Ed,- Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1859-1863; Dec. Dig. § 780.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Jas. W. Swayne, Judge.
    Sam Shrewder was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Lattimore, Cummings, Doyle & Bouldin, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

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

The Assistant Attorney General moved to strike out the statement of facts. It is unnecessary to pass upon this motion, as the case will be disposed of on the charge of the court.

The court charged the jury in respect to accomplice’s testimony, in applying that phase of the law, as follows: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless the jury first believes the accomplice’s evidence is true, and that it shows or tends to show defendant is guilty; and then you cannot convict,” etc. The vice in the charge is that the accomplice’s testimony must “tend” to show. This form of charge has been condemned in a great number of cases. Among the later cases is Pace v. State, 124 S. W. 949. In Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 123 S. W. 583, a form of charge on this subject was laid down.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.  