Skirlock v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
HAWKINS, Judge.
It is now made to appear that the charge of the court contained in the original transcript and which embraced a charge upon circumstantial evidence was incorrect; that in fact the instruction to the jury contained no charge upon that subject.
The learned trial judge explains that he did not give a charge upon circumstantial evidence because the facts proven were in such close juxtaposition to the main fact sought to be established that in his opinion it was equivalent to direct testimony. In this respect we think the learned trial judge fell into error.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beason v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Holland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1903
- Montgomery v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Spencer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Crawford v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Houghton and Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1930
- McCurley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Riggins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Riggins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1971