Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

116 Tex. Crim. 615

33 S.W.2d 452

Blalock v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 5, 1930

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1930-11-05

<p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1968

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-11-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

¶2 Passing on the case in the light of the record as it would be if we should consider a supplemental transcript showing that there was an exception taken to the failure or refusal of the lower court to charge on circumstantial evidence, — we note that the accomplice having given direct testimony showing appellant’s guilt, this obviated any necessity for a charge on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Branch states the rule at page 1040 of his Annotated P. C., as follows: “The fact that the only direct testimony comes from an accomplice witness, does not make it necessary to charge on circumstantial evidence. Wampler v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App. 353; Thompson v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep. 222, and other cases are cited.

¶3 The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

¶4 Overruled.

/116/texcrim/615 · .json · Public domain