Crowley v. State

10 S.W. 217, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 578, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 19, 1888
DocketNo. 3052
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 S.W. 217 (Crowley 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
Crowley v. State, 10 S.W. 217, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 578, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (Tex. Ct. App. 1888).

Opinion

Willson, Judge.

In this case the evidence upon which the conviction is based is wholly circumstantial as to the taking of the alleged stolen animal by the defendant. He claimed the animal as his property, and admitted that he had placed his brand upon it, but claimed also that he had bought it. He had never admitted that he took it from the range or from the possession of the owner, and there is no evidence, not circumstantial, which connects him with the original taking of the animal. Such being the character of the evidence, the trial court committed a material error in failing to charge the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence, and for this error alone the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Gardner v. State
196 P. 750 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1921)
People v. Scott
37 P. 335 (Utah Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 S.W. 217, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 578, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-state-texapp-1888.