Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Lane v. Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas
991 S.W.2d 904 (1999)


Facts

James Lane (defendant) and three of his friends, Patricia R., Kris Shank, and Anna Eason, participated in the robbery of 71-year-old Hillard Doss at Doss’s house in Texas. The robbery was Lane’s idea. Lane told his friends that Doss was known to carry large amounts of cash, and all three friends agreed to Lane’s plan to commit the robbery. Lane drove his friends to Doss’s home. After arriving, Lane and Patricia stayed in the car, while Shank and Eason left to carry out the robbery. Shank and Eason returned to the car without having robbed Doss, but Lane encouraged them to go through with the robbery. Shank and Eason went back to Doss’s house, committed the robbery, and fled the scene with Lane and Patricia. Afterward, Lane, Shank, and Eason divided up the money they had stolen from Doss. Lane was arrested for aggravated robbery of an elderly person. At Lane’s trial, testimony from Patricia, Shank, and Eason was introduced against Lane. Under Texas law, a criminal defendant could not be convicted if the only evidence against him was uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The trial court instructed the jury that Eason and Shank were accomplices to the crime, but refused to instruct the jury that Patricia was also an accomplice, thereby allowing Patricia’s non-accomplice testimony to corroborate the testimony of Shank and Eason. Lane was convicted. Lane appealed to the Court of Appeals of Texas, arguing that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that Patricia was an accomplice.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.