History
  • No items yet
midpage
Willard v. State
26 Tex. Ct. App. 126
| Tex. App. | 1888
|
Check Treatment
Willson, Judge.

This conviction is based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and the court, having failed to instruct the jury with regard to that character of evidence, committed error for which the conviction must be set aside. (Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2342.)

Holloway, the alleged owner of the cow, testified that the defendant promised to pay him fifteen dollars for the cow, etc. This did not prove a confession by defendant of the theft of the cow, and can not be regarded as more than a circumstance tending to establish defendant’s guilt of the theft. If defendant had confessed that he took the cow, such confession would have been direct evidence, and would have dispensed with a charge upon circumstantial evidence; but there is no proof in *131the record that he made such a confession. (Eckert v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 105.)

Opinion delivered October 13, 1888.

Other questions presented in the record will not arise on another trial, and need not be determined.

Because of the error in the charge, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Willard v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Oct 13, 1888
Citation: 26 Tex. Ct. App. 126
Docket Number: No. 2902
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.