# Stephens v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 6, 1935 · 128 Tex. Crim. 311

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3983120

## Case

- **Full name:** C. E. (Elder) Stephens v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 6, 1935
- **Citations:** 128 Tex. Crim. 311; 80 S.W.2d 980; 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 188
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Morrow
- **Judges:** Morrow, Krueger
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3983120

## Opinion text

*316
ON state’s motion for rehearing.
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
State’s counsel contends that there was error committed in reversing the case. He bases his assertion upon the fact, expressed by him, that the testimony describing the letter bearing date January 9, 1934, as set out in the original opinion, was properly received as corroboration of the prosecutrix; that such corroboration was rendered admissible by the admission of the prosecutrix in her testimony that she had previously implicated another person besides appellant. Counsel for the State refers to the annotations in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., sec. 91. Our examination of the precedents mentioned fails to convince us of the soundness of the State’s contention. An examination of other decisions of this court seems to fortify the position of the appellant in the present appeal. Notable examples are Purvis v. State, 104 Texas Crim. Rep., 408 ; Terrell v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 599 . In the syllabus of the latter case it is said: “Letters written by the person injured or by a third person, addressed to the accused and received by him, but never answered or acted on by him, are not admissible against him unless they are a part of the
res gestae.”
Testimony similar to that for which the State contends in the present instance was likewise rejected in the opinion of Judge Hawkins in the Purvis case, supra.
Upon the record and our understanding of the controlling precedents, the State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3983120. Public record. Not legal advice.