
    JONES v. STATE.
    (No. 8626.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 11, 1924.)
    1. Incest <§=>15 — Proof of accusation of accused by prosecutrix not sufficient corroboration of her.
    In a prosecution for incest, proof that pros-ecutrix told her sister that the accused was the cause of her pregnancy was not a sufficient corroboration of prosecutrix.
    2. Incest <8=>I5 — Absence of accused after filing complaint not sufficient corroboration of prosecutrix.
    In a prosecution for incest, absence of the accused from the vicinity after filing complaint against him was not a sufficient corroboration of the prosecutrix.
    3.Criminal law <3=5507(7) — ilnoesi) ©=>15— Prosecutrix an accomplice in incest cases, and testimony must be found to corroborate her.
    In a prosecution for incest, -prosecutrix is an accomplice, and jury cannot convict, without testimony, other than hers, which itself tends to connect accused with the offense.
    Appeal from District Court, Payette County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.
    Am Jones was convicted of incest, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    C. E. Nesrsta, of San Antonio, and George Willrieh, of La Grange, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Payette county of incest, and his punishment fixed at 10 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s daughter testified against him, setting forth fully the fact that he had been guilty of carnally knowing her and that from that intercourse a child was born about 7 months later. A physician testified to the fact that said girl gave birth to a child, which was born dead and appeared to be of about 7 months’ development. There was some testimony to the .effect that, subsequent to the filing of a complaint against appellant and for several months thereafter, he could not be found in the neighborhood in which he lived. It appears, however, that he voluntarily surrendered himself to the officers on the occasion of his arrest. This constitutes the state’s case, except that in rebuttal the state introduced a sister of the prosecuting witness, who testified that in May, 1923, and during the pregnancy of the prosecutrix, she told witness that appellant was the cause of her trouble.

There seems need for the discussion of but one question,_ viz. the complaint of lack of corroboration of prosecutrix. As we understand the record, it is wholly devoid of any testimony of a corroborative character. Proof that the prosecutrix told her sister that appellant was the cause of her trouble could not measure up to the standard of corroborative testimony. The law plainly is that the accomplice cannot corroborate herself by any statement made by her in or out of court.

The only other circumstance in evidence at all is .that appellant was not found by the officers who sought to arrest him. Appellant told witnesses, who state that fact, that he was afraid for some reason of a certain man, and that this man would kill him. Appellant himself testified that he went out to El Paso to visit his son, and stayed with him some time. As we view the matter. the absence of appellant does not supply the testimony necessary to effect corroboration.

The learned trial judge told the jury, that prosecutrix was an accomplice, and that they could not convict unless they found in the evidence testimony, other than, that of the prosecutrix, which of itself tended to connect appellant with the commission of the offense. This was correct.

Being unable to find in the record any testimony measuring up to the legal standard laid down by the trial judge, we are compelled to direct a reversal of this case. See Weber v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 256 S. W. 597.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <§z^>For other cases see same topic and KE¥-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     