Legal Opinion

Bickerstaff v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 6, 1940No. 20887Published

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant has filed a very able motion for rehearing in which he contends that we erred in our original opinion in holding that the State’s case did not rest on circumstantial evidence and therefore the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence or to submit appellant’s special requested instruction thereon. After a careful review of the testimony, we think appellant’s contention is well founded. The testimony shows that the appellant, Lee Bickerstaff, at the time in question, operated a place known as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Berry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1926
  2. Andrews v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1927
  3. Puga v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API