Davis v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge. —

Appellant earnestly insists that this is a case of circumstantial evidence, admitting that if the case is not wholly dependent upon evidence of that character, then it was not necessary for the court to charge thereon. Looking to the statement of facts we find proof of appellant’s admissions that he broke and entered the private residence in question. This was direct evidence. In Reason v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. Rep. 442, this court states that the factum probandum in a burglary ease is the breaking and entry. In Winn v. State, 198 S. W. 966, opinion…