Cox v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cox v. State

13 Tex. Ct. App. 479, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1883

DocketNo. 1468

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Tex. Ct. App. 479 (Cox v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. State, 13 Tex. Ct. App. 479, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Willson, J.

This is a conviction of the crime of perjury. While the indictment is not in strict accordance with approved precedents, still we are of the opinion that it is substantially sufficient, and contains all the material allegations of the facts constituting the offense. (Allen v. The State, 42 Texas, 12; Bradberry v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 375; West v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App., 119.)

We are of the opinion, however, that the evidence upon which the conviction is based is legally insufficient. There were three witnesses placed upon the stand to testify as to the falsity of the alleged false oath of the defendant. But one of these witnesses testified that defendant’s alleged false statements were untrue, and this witness admitted that she did not hear all of the conversation in relation to which the perjury is assigned. By the testimony of the other two witnesses the truth, instead of the falsity, of the alleged false matter is to our minds established. There is no evidence whatever corroborating the testimony of the single witness as to the falsity of the defendant’s oath. Under this state of case the court below erred in failing to instruct the jury to acquit the defendant. (Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 745, 746; Gabrielsky v. The State, decided at the present term, ante, p. 428.)

Because the evidence does not fulfill the requirements of the law, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion delivered February 17, 1883.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Willson, J.

This is a conviction of the crime of perjury. While the indictment is not in strict accordance with approved precedents, still we are of the opinion that it is substantially sufficient, and contains all the material allegations of the facts constituting the offense. (Allen v. The State, 42 Texas, 12; Bradberry v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 375; West v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App., 119.)

We are of the opinion, however, that the evidence upon which the conviction is based is legally insufficient. There were three witnesses placed upon the stand to testify as to the falsity of the alleged false oath of the defendant. But one of these witnesses testified that defendant’s alleged false statements were untrue, and this witness admitted that she did not hear all of the conversation in relation to which the perjury is assigned. By the testimony of the other two witnesses the truth, instead of the falsity, of the alleged false matter is to our minds established. There is no evidence whatever corroborating the testimony of the single witness as to the falsity of the defendant’s oath. Under this state of case the court below erred in failing to instruct the jury to acquit the defendant. (Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 745, 746; Gabrielsky v. The State, decided at the present term, ante, p. 428.)

Because the evidence does not fulfill the requirements of the law, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion delivered February 17, 1883.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Tex. Ct. App. 479, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-state-texapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack