Hardie v. State

Appellant has presented a motion for rehearing in which he urges two propositions, both of which have given us much concern. The first is that the evidence demonstrates that appellant was not a “principal” in the kidnapping of Mr. Kirby; second, that the case is one dependent on circumstantial evidence and a charge upon such issue should have been given.

It is well to get clearly in our minds when a party is a “prin cipal” in the commission of an offense. In Middleton v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 217 S. W. 1046, it was pointed out that some confusion had arisen regarding the question and it…