Willard v. State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.W. 358 |
| Parties | WILLARD <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Eastland county; T. H. CONNER, Judge.
From a conviction for the theft of a cow, the defendant, Lon Willard, appeals.
Hammons & Cotton, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This conviction is based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and the court, having failed to instruct the jury with regard to that character of evidence, committed error, for which the conviction must be set aside. Halloway, the alleged owner of the cow, testified that the defendant promised to pay him $15 for the cow. This did not prove a confession by defendant of the theft of the cow, and cannot be regarded as more than a circumstance tending to establish defendant's guilt of the theft. If the defendant had confessed that he took the cow, such confession would have been direct evidence, and would have dispensed with a charge upon circumstantial evidence. But there is no proof in the record that he made such a confession. Eckert v. State, 9 Tex. App. 105. Other questions presented in the record will not arise on another trial, and need not be discussed. Because of the error in the charge, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Andrus
...264; Goodwin v. State, 114 Wis. 318, 90 N.W. 170; Collins v. State, supra; Michaels v. People, 208 Ill. 603, 70 N.E. 747; Willard v. State, 26 Tex.App. 126, 9 S.W. 358. Counsel for defendants, as already stated, treats the remark as an incriminatory admission, and argues that the foundation......
- Spear v. State