Hankins v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1DissentClinton, Judge
More than one hundred years ago judges of the former court of appeals were uniformly holding that an omission to charge on circumstantial evidence is not cured by the ordinary charge on reasonable doubt. Hunt v. State, 7 Tex.App. 212, 235-236 (Ct. App.1879); Wallace v. State, 7 Tex.App. 570, 574 (Ct.App.1880); Struckman v. State, 7 Tex.App. 581, 582 (Ct.App.1880). I am not persuaded that what the majority today sees as a trend of conventional wisdom on *218the subject proves they were wrong.1 Accordingly, I dissent.
One need read only Jones v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 30 S.W. 1059 (1895) to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Holland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Ex Parte McWilliamsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1982
- Bishop v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Butler v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Trijo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.