Cordill v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of adultery by habitual carnal intercourse without living together.
The paramour testified to nine specific acts of sexual intercourse occurring between the 15th of August and the 25th day of December, 1916, at intervals varying from one to two weeks, except that in one instance there was an interval of some two and a half or three months. The testimony of the- paramour is treated as accomplice testimony, requiring corroboration. Art. 801, C. C. P.; Jackson v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 220, 101 S. W. Rep., 807; Wallace v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 611.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Patrick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Hilton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899
- Quinn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Collins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Wallace v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lara v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1949
- Yates v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Hafley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Kennedy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1947
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1945