
    TATE v. STATE.
    
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 20, 1912.)
    Criminal Law (§ 736*) — Accomplices—Who ARE.
    Where the evidence in no way connected a witness with the crime charged, he was not an accomplice, so as to authorize or require the submission to the jury of the question whether he was an accomplice.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1219, 1220, 1701, 1702, 1705, 1716; Dec. Dig. § 736.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Cottle County; Jo. A. P. Dickson, Judge.
    Burrell Tate was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    M. J. Hathaway, of Childress, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       Rehearing denied December 18, 1912.
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of cow theft, and given the lowest penalty.

As stated by appellant in his brief, the sole question in .this case was whether or not the evidence showed or tended to show that the state's witness Hobbs was an accomplice in the theft, sq as'to require the court to submit that question to the jury. The court charged that Stanfield was an accomplice, and give a correct charge as to the necessity of the corroboration of his testimony. No complaint is made of this.

We have carefully studied the evidence in this case, and in our opinion the evidence does not show or tend to show that Hobbs was an accomplice, so as to authorize or require the court to submit that question to the jury, and the court did not err in not submitting it to the jury. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence. It in no way connects Hobbs with the theft, so as to show or tend to show that he had anything to do therewith, or was in any way an accomplice in the theft.

The judgment is affirmed.  