Powell v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
It was admitted that defendant had been tried upon a valid indictment for fraudulently defacing the brand upon the same animal for the theft of which he was about to be tried. Defendant requested that this case be postponed until the jury had returned their verdict in the former case, in order that he might interpose his plea of jeopardy in this case. This request to postpone was refused by the court. No further statement necessary.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of cattle. In his motion for new trial he excepted to the court’s charge, because it limited the law in regard to accomplice’s testimony to that of Will Bennett; the insistence being that the evidence showed ■other witnesses were so connected with the transaction as to require an application of the law of accomplice testimony to their evidence. This is unquestionably true as to the witness Kitchen, and we believe the charge should also have left the fact to the jury to determine as to whether or not Hays was so connected with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Maines v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cuellar v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1997
- Dupree v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Barnett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- State v. BockmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- Phillips v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.