Alexander v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
LATTIMORE, Judge. —
In its motion for rehearing the State strongly urges that we were wrong in holding it necessary to reverse the case because the trial court declined to charge the jury as a matter of law that prosecutrix was an accomplice. Authorities are cited in the motion. We have examined them with others and have concluded that this claim is well founded.
The court below submitted the question of the complicity of the girl to the jury in a manner favorable to appellant. After telling them that a conviction could not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Elizando v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1892
- Standfield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Burgess v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.