stating that although motive is not element of offense, State is entitled to prove motive “if it is relevant as a circumstance tending to prove the commission of the offense.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that although motive is not element of offense, State is entitled to prove motive “if it is relevant as a circumstance tending to prove the commission of the offense.”
- finding that the appellant’s attempted flight was a factor that tended to connect him to the murder
- holding that evidence of withdrawing cash with intent to flee country probative of intent to murder
- evidence demonstrating accused’s motive “is admissible if it is relevant as a circumstance tending to prove the commission of the offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
dissents for reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Ex Parte Bower, 823 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).