Pulliam v. State

Plaintiff in error was convicted of stealing baled cotton, -and upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial he excepted. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial is that the following charge of the court was error, because it was an expression of opinion by the court that the testimony of the witness or witnesses referred to was sufficient to convict the defendant, and that it was true: “ If you decide from all the testimony in the case that either of the witnesses for the State is not an accomplice,— that is, participated in the crime with the intention of committing the…