Riggins v. State

I respectfully dissent. The facts as stated by the majority are essentially correct.

In letting “close juxtaposition” of facts control in this case, the majority overlook the main fact to be proved, the factum probandum.

In Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 72 S.W.2d 269, this Court, quoting from 18 Tex.Jur. 439, Sec. 317, said that:

“The terms ‘circumstantial evidence’ and ‘direct testimony’ denote different modes in which the facts testified to operate to produce conviction. In contradistinction to the direct testimony of an eye-witness, ‘circumstantial evidence’ connotes evidence of other…