Opinion

Blalock v. State

  • 116 Tex. Crim. 615
  • 33 S.W.2d 452
  • 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 831
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Nov 5, 1930
Status
Published
Author
Lattimore
On the bench
Lattimore, Martin
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Passing on the case in the light of the record as it would be if we should consider a supplemental transcript showing that there was an exception taken to the failure or refusal of the lower court to charge on circumstantial evidence, — we note that the accomplice having given direct testimony showing appellant’s guilt, this obviated any necessity for a charge on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Branch states the rule at page 1040 of his Annotated P. C., as follows: “The fact that the only direct testimony comes from an accomplice witness, does not make it necessary to charge on circumstantial evidence. Wampler v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App. 353; Thompson v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep. 222 , and other cases are cited.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.