Campbell v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1909 |
| Citation | 123 S.W. 583 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Somervell County; W. J. Oxford, Judge.
Bill Campbell was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Levi Herring and W. E. Myres, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Somervell county, on May 12th of this year, of the crime of seduction, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The trial court at which he was convicted adjourned on the 22d day of May of this year. What purports to be a statement of facts found in the record does not seem to have been filed at any time in the district court, as by law required. Same was filed in this court on the 23d day of July, 1909. Under the law, this statement of facts cannot be considered, and in this condition of the record it is evident that the case must be affirmed. We have, however, examined the statement of facts, and in the light of same we do not believe, if same could be considered, that there is any error for which the case should be reversed.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment be, and it is hereby, in all things affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
This case was affirmed at a former day of this term, on the assumption that no statement of facts had been filed in the court below, as required by law. Since then it has been made to appear that in truth said statement of facts was filed in the court below on the 7th day of June of this year, and that the clerk, through inadvertence, failed to place his file mark upon the original statement of facts in the cause, and that a copy of said statement of facts in the cause was duly filed in his office on the date aforesaid. The caption shows that the court adjourned on the 22d day of May. The statement of facts, therefore, under the law, was filed in time, and as the record now appears we are required to pass on the questions raised in the light of such statement of facts. So considered, it will be apparent that the case must be reversed on account of the error in the charge of the court on the subject of accomplice.
On this issue the court thus instructed the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCue v. State
...it necessary to discuss each of them. The charge on this issue as given is a virtual copy of the form prescribed in Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 302, 123 S. W. 583, and approved in King v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 363, 123 S. W. 135, and other cases handed down since the rendition of thes......
-
Ruffins v. State
..." but that "by the 1940's, corroboration of ‘all material facts’ was necessary" (internal citations omitted)).It is true that, in Campbell v. State , decided in 1909, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained what "should" be included in an accomplice-witness jury-charge instruction to effect......
-
Doser v. State
... ... convict the defendant if they believed the testimony of the ... accomplices had been corroborated. In support of this ... proposition she cites Crenshaw v. State, 48 ... Tex.Cr.R. 77, 85 S.W. 1147; Wadkins v. State, 58 ... Tex.Cr.R. 110, 124 S.W. 959; Campbell v. State, 57 ... Tex.Cr.R. 301, 123 S.W. 583; Brown v. State, 57 ... Tex.Cr.R. 570, 124 S.W. 101, all from the Court of Criminal ... Appeals of the State of Texas. This court does not follow the ... rule as announced in the State of Texas to the effect that to ... so instruct the jury ... ...
-
Grant v. State
...to the fact that, in view of the large number of reversals on account of charges similar to this, in the case of Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 123 S. W. 583, we laid down a form of charge on the subject of accomplice testimony for the use of the trial courts. Attention is also call......