Legal Opinion

Cordill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 20, 1918No. 4876PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Patrick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
  2. Hilton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899
  3. Quinn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
  4. Collins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
  5. Wallace v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lara v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1949
  2. Yates v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
  3. Hafley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
  4. Kennedy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1947
  5. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API