Thomas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Thomas v. State

13 Tex. Ct. App. 493, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1883

DocketNo. 1375

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Tex. Ct. App. 493 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 13 Tex. Ct. App. 493, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

White, P. J.

Appellant was convicted in this case upon evidence wholly circumstantial. A rule of practice settled in this State by decisions which have been iterated and reiterated, is that where the inculpatory evidence is purely circumstantial the charge of the court must expound to the jury the nature and conclusiveness of that character of evidence, to warrant a conviction upon it. It is part of the law applicable to the case, and cannot be omitted from the charge without causing error fatal to the conviction. (Gonzales v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 657, and authorities cited.)

In his motion for new trial appellant called the attention of the court to this omission in the charge, and the motion should have been granted. (Bishop v. The State, 43 Texas, 390.)

Because the charge did not present the law of the case, 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

White, P. J.

Appellant was convicted in this case upon evidence wholly circumstantial. A rule of practice settled in this State by decisions which have been iterated and reiterated, is that where the inculpatory evidence is purely circumstantial the charge of the court must expound to the jury the nature and conclusiveness of that character of evidence, to warrant a conviction upon it. It is part of the law applicable to the case, and cannot be omitted from the charge without causing error fatal to the conviction. (Gonzales v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 657, and authorities cited.)

In his motion for new trial appellant called the attention of the court to this omission in the charge, and the motion should have been granted. (Bishop v. The State, 43 Texas, 390.)

Because the charge did not present the law of the case, 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. 493, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-texapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack