holding that for purposes of the law of parties mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the offense will not support a conviction; but, it is a circumstance which, combined with other facts, may show the defendant was a participant
How later courts described this case
- holding that for purposes of the law of parties mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the offense will not support a conviction; but, it is a circumstance which, combined with other facts, may show the defendant was a participant
- holding that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to show that an accused is a party to an offense
- Mere presence alone at the scene of the offense will not support a conviction; however, it is a circumstance which, combined with other facts, may show that the defendant was a participant.
- “[M]ere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to prove that a person is a party to the crime . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEAGUE, J.,
finds that because the Court of Appeals has correctly decided that a rational trier would not find the evidence sufficient, and the theory used by the State was not the exclusive theory, he votes to put this Court’s “improvidently granted stamp” to the State’s petition for discretionary review.
ONION, P.J., not participating.