Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 2003.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-02-00550-CR
_______________
RICHARD JAMES PATZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 898, 370
__________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Richard James Patz appeals a conviction for capital murder on the ground that the testimony of an accomplice witness was not corroborated by evidence connecting appellant to the offense. We affirm.
A person cannot be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice witness unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence “tending to connect” the accused with the offense committed. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon 1979). However, the non-accomplice evidence need not be sufficient, in itself, to support a conviction[1] or even to connect the defendant to every element of the crime. Vasquez v. State, 56 S.W.3d 46, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
In this case, the non-accomplice evidence tending to connect appellant to the murder was that: (1) a few days after the complainant’s murder, appellant was driving a truck owned by the complainant; (2) three days after that, appellant was riding with the accomplice in another truck that belonged to the complainant; and (3) a box lying on top of the complainant’s body at the murder scene contained a latex glove that had a fingerprint matching appellant’s. Appellant argues, in effect, that, because he was employed by the complainant, used latex gloves in that job, and was allowed to use the complainant’s vehicles, the foregoing non-accomplice evidence connects him only with being employed by the complainant, not his murder. However, the facts that appellant was using the complainant’s vehicles after his death and that the glove with his fingerprint was found on the body tend to connect him to the offense. Accordingly, the accomplice witness evidence was sufficiently corroborated, appellant’s points of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 2003.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Edelman.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).