# Richardson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 28, 1980 · 600 S.W.2d 818

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683769

## Case

- **Full name:** James A. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 600 S.W.2d 818; 1980 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1221
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Odom
- **Judges:** Odom, Dally, Clinton, Douglas, Davis
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9683769

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683769. Public record. Not legal advice.