Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Shippy v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 27, 1977No. 53831Published

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

  1. Sloan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
  2. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
  3. Eiland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
  4. Philadelphia & R. R. v. BergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
  5. Bloch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API