circumstantial evidence “is direct proof of a secondary factor which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proved”
How later courts described this case
- circumstantial evidence “is direct proof of a secondary factor which, by logical inference, demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proved”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ODOM, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the reversal of this conviction, but not on the ground relied on by the majority.
I decline to join the holding that a circumstantial evidence charge was called for under the facts of this case. The confession and other evidence set forth in the majority opinion clearly demonstrate that the State’s case did not establish that the offense to which appellant confessed is the same offense as that for which he was tried and convicted.
*826 The majority hold the connection between the confession and the evidence of the corpus delicti is made by so tenuous a set of inferences as to require a circumstantial evidence charge. I would hold the inferences too tenuous to support the connection at all, and hold the evidence insufficient. For this reason I dissent to the remand of this case for a retrial.