Shippy v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPhillips, Judge
I concur in the disposition of appellant’s ground of error pertaining to the submission of a charge on circumstantial evidence at the punishment phase of the trial for the following reasons.
“We have three classes of evidence: (1) Direct or testimonial evidence; (2) indirect or circumstantial evidence; (3) autoptie preference, or real evidence.” Philadelphia and R.R. Co. v. Berg, 274 F. 534, 537 (3rd Cir. 1921), citing Greenleaf on Evidence (16th Ed.), Vol. 1, Sec. 13a; Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 1150, et seq.
There being no expert testimony in the cause sub judice as to “future probability”,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sloan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Eiland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Philadelphia & R. R. v. BergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
- Bloch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.