Chitister v. State

• Decision Date: 01 December 1894
• Docket Number: (No. 1,030.)
• Citation: 28 S.W. 683
• Parties: CHITISTER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

28 S.W. 683

CHITISTER v. STATE.

(No. 1,030.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 1, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Jack county; J. W. Patterson, Judge.

James Chitister was convicted of theft of cattle, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. E. Taylor and Jones & Gilliland, for appellant. R. L. Henry, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

1. The court charged the jury that: "In this case the state relies for a conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, and, in order to warrant a conviction upon such evidence, each fact necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and the facts and circumstances proved should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis or conclusion than that of guilt, and producing in your minds a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused committed the offense." This instruction — favorably for appellant — presents the law applicable to circumstantial evidence, and is not subject to the criticism that it does not furnish the jury a proper rule for weighing the facts separately and collectively. There is no prescribed form for such instruction. If the ideas conveyed by the charge are correct, and so expressed as to be understood by the jury, then it is sufficient. Willson, Cr. St. § 2342, for collated authorities.

2. That he induced appellant to give him property to secure his departure from the state, in order to be rid of his testimony, did not, of itself, constitute the witness Crawley an accessory. In order to render the witness an accessory, he must have concealed the accused, or given him some aid, so that he may have evaded an arrest or trial, or the execution of his sentence. Willson, Crim. St. § 167. This was not done. The witness did accept the property, and also agreed to leave the state. He, however, did not leave the state, and it is shown that he sought the bribe as a means of securing testimony for the purpose of convicting appellant for the theft of the animal set out in the indictment. He was active in the prosecution of the case, and testified in behalf of the state on the trial. This evidence did not require a charge upon the law applicable to an accomplice's testimony, and the court did not err in failing to so charge.

3. Nor did the court err in failing to charge the jury that they could not convict appellant for theft of any animal other than that set out in the indictment. No...