providing approved jury instruction for accomplice-witness testimony but also approving jury instructions “on this subject” in other cases decided that term
How later courts described this case
- providing approved jury instruction for accomplice-witness testimony but also approving jury instructions “on this subject” in other cases decided that term
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Richards v. State, 116 Tex. Crim. 100 (1930)
The learned trial judge gave the charge in the form as laid down in Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 123 S. W. 583, which has been questioned in some cases.
Criticized by Thompson v. State, 113 Tex. Crim. 45 (1929)
“The quoted part of the court’s charge seems more objectionable than the charge in Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 123 S. W. 583, which has been criticized by this court.
The opinion
RAMSEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Somervell County on May 12th of this year of the crime of seduction, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The trial court at which he was convicted adjourned on the 22d day of May of this year. What purports to be a statement of facts found in the record does not seem to have been filed at any time in the District Court as by law required. Same was filed in this court on the 23d day of July, 1909. tinder the law this statement of facts can not be considered, and in this condition of the record it is evident that the case must be affirmed. We have, however, examined the statement of facts, and in the light of same we do not believe, if same could be considered, that there is any error for which the case should be reversed. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment be and it is hereby in all things affirmed.
Affirmed.