
    WEBB et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 11567.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 2, 1928.
    Rehearing Denied June 23, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <§=>510½ — 'Testimony as to conversation with coconspirator held admlssl- . ble to corroborate accomplice.
    In robbery prosecution, testimony of chief of police as to conversation with coconspirator, during which the coconspirator merely pointed out spot where the automobile of the robbers had been stuck in the mud, held admissible as corroboration of accomplice
    2. Criminal law <§=507(2) — Friend of defendants, who participated in conversation regarding crime, held not accomplice, in absence of showing her criminal connection therewith.
    Witness, who was friendly with defendants and who heard and perhaps participated in conversation between defendants concerning the robbery with which they were charged, held not an accomplice, in the absence of evidence showing her criminal connection with the robbery.
    3.-Witnesses <§=>244 — Court did not abuse discretion in permitting leading questions hy state to unfriendly witness.
    ■ Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to propound leading questions to witness who was particularly friendly to the defendants.-
    4. Criminal law <§==>511(1) — Evidence in corroboration of accomplice in prosecution for robbery with firearms held sufficient.
    In prosecution for robbery with firearms, evidence in corroboration of accomplice held sufficient.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Robbery <§=20 — Proof of character or value of money was unnecessary, where indictment charged taking specified sum without description.
    Where indictment charging robbery with firearms alleged that specified sum of money was taken, without describing such money as current money of United States, it was unnecessary to prove either the character or the value of the money.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    O. W. Webb and Tom Meniek were convicted of robbery with firearms, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    J. W. Culwell and Works & Bassett, all of Amarillo, for appellants.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Appellants were charged by indictment with robbery with firearms. The, penalty assessed against appellant Webb was five years, and against appellant Meniek ten years.

It was shown by the state that prosecuting witness, Berry, was robbed of about $500 in money by three men at about midnight on May 12, 1927, and that said witness positively identified A G. Goforth as one of the participants in such robbery. Prosecuting witness further testified that participants wore black masks over their faces. The state used the accomplice Goforth as a witness, who testified, among other things, that the appellants and himself robbed the witness Berry substantially as testified to by Berry, after which they started away in a Ford car and got stuck in the mud.

Objection was made to the introduction of testimony by Goforth and Chief of Police Gaither that some ten days after the robbery Goforth accompanied Gaither, to the point where said car had been stuck and there pointed out to him some car tracks, and that Gaither alsoj found at that point the tops of some black stockings, which Goforth testified were used by the parties as masks on the occasion of the robbery. It is claimed by the appellant that this was the admission of a declaration of a coconspirator made after the termination of the conspiracy, and was too remote. There seems to have been no conversation between Gaither and Goforth admitted in evidence, and the testimony went no further apparently than to point out the spot where the car of the alleged robbers had been stuck in the mud, which testimony was admissible as corroborative of the accomplice. Gray v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 305, 268 S. W. 941, 269 S. W. 1056; Funk v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 208 S. W. 509.

Complaint is made because the court refused to charge that a witness, Mrs. Ethel Snyder, was an accomplice, and that one accomplice could not corroborate another. The court submitted the question of her being an accomplice as an issue to the jury, and further instructed that, if she were an accomplice, the jury could not convict the appellant upon either her testimony alone or on both the testimony of herself and witness Goforth. This was, in our opinion, all and more than the appellants were entitled to. We fail to find any evidence in the record, which, to our mind, would justify a finding that Mrs. Snyder was an accomplice. She heard and perhaps participated in a conversation between the parties concerning the robbery, but the evidence does not show her criminal connection in any way with same. That she was particularly friendly with appellants is manifest, but we do not think that the evidence goes any further than to show such friendship.

Her attitude was such that the court did not abuse his discretion in permitting the ¡state to propound leading questions to her as complained of by appellant in bill of exception No. 11. Navarro v. State, 24 Tex. App. 378, 6 S. W. 542; Branch’s P. C. § 158.

It is strenuously insisted that the accomplice Goforth was not corroborated. It has frequently been held by this court that corroborative evidence need not be such as is sufficient to convict independent of that of the accomplice. One of the latest expressions of this court on the question was in the case of Grice v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 298 S. W. 597, where some of the authorities are collated. The accomplice was corroborated by the finding of the tracks and the masks as testified to by him, and further by the prosecuting witnesses Berry and Johnson as to the description of the three men who committed the offense, and by Mrs. Snyder, who testified to hearing á conversation between the three men with reference to its commission and only a little while prior thereto.

Believing the evidence sufficient, and that no reversible errors appear in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER OURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

Appellants have filed separate motions for rehearing. The statement of facts and the record have been carefully re-examined. We are constrained to adhere to the announcement made in the original opinion. A recital of the evidence corroborative of the accomplice Goforth is not deemed necessary. Suffice it to say that the jury was warranted from the testimony of Mr@. Snyder in concluding that the appellants and Goforth engaged in planning the robbery before it was committed. There were several conversations touching the matter at the home of Mrs. Snyder, and her evidence justified the conclusion by the jury, that the appellants were at her home together on the occasion of the robbery, after providing themselves with a flashlight and pistol; instruments of that character being used in the commission of the offense.

The point made in the motion that the indictment charged that the money taken “was current money of the United States” seems to be based upon a mistake of fact. The indictment does not contain such an averment. It charges that from Berry there was taken the sum of $500. With that averment the evidence corresponded. Under the averment, it is unnecessary to prove either the character or the value of the money.

The motion is overruled. 
      <⅜?1tor other oases see sa me topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     