Tidwell v. State

(concurring specially). — It appears that in all the cases decided by this Court on the point, the motion to require the State to elect upon which of two inconsistent counts it would rely for conviction was made at the close of the State’s case in chief and not at the close of all the testimony. It would seem that such would be the time for making such a motion. The only possible reason for re quiring the State to elect upon which count it would rely for conviction is in order that the defendant might know which of two inconsistent charges he is called upon to meet with his evidence, and…