Conner v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant insists in his motion for rehearing that we either failed to get the point of his attack on the charge, or else had declined to follow the precedents cited in his original brief. The court’s charge on accomplice testimony is quoted in our former opinion, and it is manifest that the court was wrong in telling the jury that they could not convict on the accomplice testimony “unless it connects the defendant with the offense charged.” We so held in our former opinion.

All of the cases cited by appellant in his brief on this point have been again…