Gray v. State

269 S.W. 1056, 99 Tex. Crim. 305
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 25, 1925·No. No. 8523·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

LATTIMORE, J.

The application for leave to file second motion for rehearing will be denied. The only matter attempted to be raised, viz., that the trial court erred in not charging on circumstantial evidence, was discussed in the original opinion, and, when the matter was up for rehearing, it was then thought that said proposition did not present a suggestion of error on the part of the learned trial judge. Appellant testified positively to his presence at the time of the homicide,, but averred that the fatal blow was struck by Burl Kemp. All the facts and circumstances in evidence by the other state witnesses, as well as by the accomplice Kemp, made plain the proposition that, not only was appellant present, but participated in the killing and in the removal and secretion of the body, etc.

The leave prayed for will be denied.

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

Gray v. State, 269 S.W. 1056, 99 Tex. Crim. 305 (Tex. 1925).

269 S.W. 1056 (Gray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mayes v. State
819 S.W.2d 877 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Penn v. State
628 S.W.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Walthall v. State
505 S.W.2d 898 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Hardin v. Estelle
365 F. Supp. 39 (W.D. Texas, 1973)
Ex Parte Slaton
484 S.W.2d 102 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)