Bustamante v. State

The question of law presented in this case is whether testimony by an accomplice witness concerning extraneous offenses committed by him and the accused must be corroborated. Finding that the opinions in Rice v. State, 605 S.W.2d 895 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), render the answer “unsettled,” for reasons it stated the Christi Court of Appeals concluded that “the intent of the legislature in enacting [Article 38.14, V.A.C. C.P.] was to make its terms applicable to extraneous offenses as well as to primary offenses.” Bustamante v. State, 653 S.W.2d 846, 849 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1982). Since there is…