Waldrop v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 20559.,20559. |
| Citation | 133 S.W.2d 969 |
| Parties | WALDROP v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wise County; J. E. Carter, Judge.
E. E. Waldrop was convicted of child desertion, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. V. Patterson, of Decatur, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is child desertion; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Mrs. E. E. Waldrop, wife of the appellant, testified, in substance as follows: She and her husband had been married eleven years and had two small children, one being eight years of age and the other, ten. Her husband had had an affair with Eunie Epperson, which impelled Mrs. Waldrop to sue him for divorce. Appellant took up his residence with Eunie Epperson and her small son in one room. Thereafter he contributed nothing to the support of his children.
Appellant's brother testified that appellant lived with Eunie Epperson and her son in one room. He said: "He (appellant) bought the groceries and she did the cooking for him." It appears that appellant and his brother were in business together in Bridgeport. The brother testified further:
Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied that he was living with Eunie Epperson. It was his version that he boarded with her. Further, he testified that he tried to get his wife to surrender the children to him, and offered to take care of them if she would. Further, he testified that he had contributed to the support of his children to the extent of his financial ability.
We think the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. The jury were warranted in reaching the conclusion that appellant gave his money to Eunie Epperson and her son instead of contributing to the support of his small children.
The three bills of exception in the record complaining of testimony to the effect that appellant was living with Eunie Epperson and supporting her fail to present error. If appellant was spending his money on others when the legal and moral duty rested upon him to support his children it was proper for the state to show such fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. State
...the proposition at issue more or less probable." Garza v. State, 715 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), citing Waldrop v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 133 S.W.2d 969 (1940). The new Rules of Criminal Evidence, effective September 1, 1986, define the term in Rule "Relevant evidence" means evide......
-
Duckett v. State
... ... Hence it is relevant to put in evidence any circumstance which tends to make the proposition at issue either more or less probable ... Plante v. State, 692 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), quoting from Waldrop v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 133 S.W.2d 969 (App.1940) ... Relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or unnecessary cumulative evidence, although we also recognize ... Page ... ...
-
Werner v. State
... ... Hence it is relevant to put in evidence any circumstance which tends to make the proposition at issue either more or less probable. Waldrop v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 133 S.W.2d 969 (Tex.Cr.App.1939) ... In the dissenting opinion that he filed in this cause, when it was pending in the Houston First Court of Appeals, Justice Levy of that court correctly observed the following: "The very purpose of 19.06's sweeping ... ...
-
Moore v. State
... ... Waldrop ... ...