Blankenship v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Dally, Commissioner.
The conviction is for robbery by assault; the - punishment, two hundred years imprisonment. 1
Among the grounds of error urged by appellant is “The trial court erred in failing to respond to appellant’s request to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence.” We agree that the failure to submit to the jury a charge on the law of circumstantial evidence, which was timely and properly requested, was reversible error.
In McCormick v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 329 S.W.2d 436 (1959) and Burleson v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 101 S.W.2d 1020 (1936), the judgments…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Blankenship v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969
- McCormick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1959
- Burleson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Seals v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1934
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hielscher v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Farris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Casey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1975
- Draper v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Britton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.