Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 03 March 1909 |
| Citation | 117 S.W. 134 |
| Parties | HILL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Scurry County; Cullen C. Higgins, Judge.
Wiley Hill was convicted of horse theft, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of horse theft; his punishment being assessed at four years in the penitentiary.
The evidence discloses that M. C. Sliger lived a few miles from Snyder, county seat of Scurry county, and was the owner of three horses; that they were taken from his pasture on Monday night, the 16th of the month. It is shown that the witness Davis took the horses and traveled with them through different counties, disposing of them at different points. The theory of the prosecution is that appellant, Davis, and his brother (Monroe Davis) took the horses, and that Billie Davis disposed of them. Billie Davis took the stand as a witness, and testified for the state to the effect that he and appellant and a party whose name he refused to divulge took the horses, and that he himself took them away and disposed of them; that this occurred on Monday night, the 16th. He further states that he had entered into a contract with the district attorney by which he was to testify to certain facts, which are set out in a written statement signed by him in the record, and which place himself and appellant at the place and time the horses disappeared, and in fact that they took them, and that he carried them away and disposed of them. His contract was, further, that he was to be released from all the prosecutions, except one, in which he was to plead guilty and receive the minimum punishment, and also states that this contract, so far as he knew, was carried out; that he had pleaded guilty and received two years as his punishment for participancy in the theft; that he had not been sentenced, and was testifying in accordance with his contract and the testimony as written out by the district attorney. The following day he again took the stand and stated, in substance, that he had fulfilled his contract and testified for the state, implicating the appellant, but that he now desired to tell the truth about it, and, being somewhat conscience-stricken, desired to recant his former testimony and tell the truth. He also states that his former testimony was entirely false, and that he committed perjury, and that appellant was not present and had nothing to do with taking the horses. His testimony was detailed at some length, and the cross-examination by the defendant when he first testified, and his cross-examination by the state when he last testified, was rather acrimonious.
Outside the testimony of this accomplice, the state had a very weak case, if in fact there was evidence justifying a conviction, even conceding he was corroborated. Appellant testified to an alibi, placing himself at another point, quite a number of miles away, at the home of his father-in-law. He is corroborated to some extent by state's witnesses to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crouchett v. State
...94 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 252 S. W. 499, and cases cited; McConnell v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 200 S. W. 842; Hill v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 117 S. W. 134, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 878. When the retraction leaves ample evidence to show the guilt of the accused and warrant the punishment assesse......
-
Foreman v. State
...Partlow v. State, 195 Ind. 164, 144 N. E. 661, 30 A. L. R. 1414;Dennis v. State, 103 Ind. 142, 2 N. E. 349;Hill v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 117 S. W. 134, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 878;State v. King & Lynch, 27 Utah, 6, 73 P. 1045. Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant's mot......
-
Isonhood v. State, 47017
...we can visualize post-conviction proceedings. See Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Mathes, 5 N.H. 574 (1830), and compare Hill v. States, 55 Tex.Cr. 435, 117 S.W. 134 (1909). The alternative relief sought by way of continuance to afford a reasonable opportunity to prosecute Whitaker on the perjury c......
-
Foreman v. State
... ... and so frail and unreliable that we would not be justified in ... affirming the judgment, and the trial court should have ... granted a new trial. See Partlow v. State ... (1924), 195 Ind. 164, 144 N.E. 661, 30 A. L. R. 1414; ... Dennis v. State (1885), 103 Ind. 142, 2 ... N.E. 349; Hill v. State (1909), 55 ... Tex.Crim. 435, 117 S.W. 134, 21 L ... ...