Lane v. State
991 S.W.2d 904 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness is not an accomplice if they are merely present during the planning and commission of a crime; to be considered an accomplice, the witness must have committed an affirmative act or a criminally culpable omission in furtherance of the offense.
Facts:
- Patricia R. and Kris Shank went to the home of James William Lane.
- Lane recruited Patricia, Shank, and Anna Eason to rob 71-year-old Hillard Doss, and the group spent about fifteen minutes planning the robbery.
- Lane drove Shank and Eason to Doss's home to commit the robbery, with Patricia riding as a passenger in the truck.
- Patricia waited in the truck with Lane while Shank and Eason made an initial, unsuccessful attempt to rob Doss.
- After Lane encouraged them to try again, Shank and Eason returned to Doss's home and committed the robbery.
- Patricia was a passenger in Lane's truck during the getaway from the crime scene.
- Back at Lane's residence, Patricia was present when Lane, Shank, and Eason divided the money stolen from Doss.
- The evidence indicated Patricia committed no affirmative act to assist in the planning or execution of the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- James William Lane was convicted of aggravated robbery of an elderly person in a Texas trial court.
- Lane, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Lane, as petitioner, sought discretionary review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness's mere presence during the planning, commission, and aftermath of a crime, without performing any affirmative act to further it, raise a fact issue requiring a trial court to instruct a jury that the witness could be an accomplice?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A witness's mere presence, even with full knowledge of a crime, does not make them an accomplice without evidence of an affirmative act to promote the offense. The court reasoned that to be an accomplice, a person must be susceptible to prosecution for the same offense as the defendant, which requires participation before, during, or after the crime through an affirmative act or a legally culpable omission. The court reviewed the evidence and found that while Patricia was present during the planning, the ride to the scene, the getaway, and the division of the proceeds, there was no evidence she committed any affirmative act in furtherance of the robbery. Her failure to stop or report the crime does not constitute a criminal omission under Texas law. Therefore, the evidence did not raise a fact issue as to her accomplice status, and the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested jury instruction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for classifying a witness as an accomplice in Texas criminal law. It clarifies the distinction between a passive bystander with guilty knowledge and an active participant who takes concrete steps to further the criminal enterprise. The ruling has significant implications for the accomplice-witness rule, which requires independent corroboration of accomplice testimony. By narrowly defining who qualifies as an accomplice, the court allows prosecutors to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of individuals who were present at a crime but did not actively participate, making it easier to secure convictions in multi-defendant cases.
Unlock the full brief for Lane v. State