McDaniel v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McDaniel v. State

87 S.W. 1044, 48 Tex. Crim. 342, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 7, 1905

DocketNo. 3048.

StatusPublished

This text of 87 S.W. 1044 (McDaniel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDaniel v. State, 87 S.W. 1044, 48 Tex. Crim. 342, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199 (Tex. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years. The former appeal was reversed, and is reported in McDaniel v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 560; 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 923. Bill of exceptions number 1 complains of the admission of the testimony of Maggie Cearley, who testified to a conversation overheard by her between appellant and his wife, while appellant was in jail. The facts in relation thereto are collated in the opinion on the former appeal. There is no substantial difference between the statement there made and the bill of exceptions presenting the matter 'upon this appeal. There are some minor differences that we do not deem necessary to rehearse. We do not think this testimony was admissible. In the absence of this testimony, we do not think the evidence is *343 sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, there being no corroboration of the accomplice..

For the error discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years. The former appeal was reversed, and is reported in McDaniel v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 560; 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 923. Bill of exceptions number 1 complains of the admission of the testimony of Maggie Cearley, who testified to a conversation overheard by her between appellant and his wife, while appellant was in jail. The facts in relation thereto are collated in the opinion on the former appeal. There is no substantial difference between the statement there made and the bill of exceptions presenting the matter 'upon this appeal. There are some minor differences that we do not deem necessary to rehearse. We do not think this testimony was admissible. In the absence of this testimony, we do not think the evidence is *343 sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, there being no corroboration of the accomplice..

For the error discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.W. 1044, 48 Tex. Crim. 342, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack