Leeper v. State

• Decision Date: 25 October 1890
• Citation: 15 S.W. 411
• Parties: LEEPER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

15 S.W. 411

LEEPER v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

October 25, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Coryell county; C. K. BELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon the second count of the indictment, which charged Layton McDonald with the offense of offering to bribe a witness in a criminal cause to disobey an attachment, and himself, appellant, as being accomplice to McDonald in the commission of said offense. A term of two years in the penitentiary was the penalty assessed by the verdict.

Vardiman, White & Taylor and McDowell, Miller & Hawkins, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

There are two counts in the indictment, but the defendant was tried upon the second count only, and upon that count convicted. In said count it is charged that one Layton McDonald offered to bribe one Mouchette, a witness who had been attached to testify in a certain criminal cause, to disobey said attachment, etc., and that the defendant, prior to the commission of said offense by said McDonald, advised, commanded, and encouraged said McDonald to commit said offense. It is alleged that the bribe offered by McDonald was "$250 in money." Exceptions were presented to the indictment, and were in our opinion properly overruled. It was not necessary to allege the kind or value of the money offered as a bribe. 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 75, 126, 127, and note 6 to section 127. In all respects we think the indictment is a good one. It is claimed as error that the court refused to give an instruction requested by counsel for defendant explaining the rules as to the consideration and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. We do not think the court erred in refusing to give such charge. The case is not one of circumstantial evidence only. The testimony of the witness Mouchette is direct as to the guilt of both McDonald and the defendant. In his amended motion for a new trial the defendant complains that the court erred in failing to charge the jury "that, before they could convict the defendant, the evidence must be sufficient to establish the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the principal McDonald," and in failing to charge that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice would not be sufficient to convict the principal, McDonald, etc. These alleged deficiencies in the charge were not excepted to at the trial, nor did the defendant request any instructions calling attention thereto. This being the state of the case before this court, we are...