Haney v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Judge.
This is a conviction for seduction. Nettie Cheek, an accomplice, testified to promises of marriage, an engagement lasting about twelve months, and one act of intercourse. The appellant thinks there is an absence of evidence of corroboration. The statute, article 789, C. C. P., demands corroboration as a predicate for conviction. Without going into details, we think the record discloses evidence upon which the jury would be justified in finding in favor of the State on the issue of corroboration. There was association of the parties, proof of the offspring, evidence of flight,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Snodgrass v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Blain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
- James v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Barnard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1903
- McCullar v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barron v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Phelps v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Salas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1956