Wright v. State

Decision Date01 June 1898
PartiesWRIGHT v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

DAVIDSON, J.

On a former day of this term, the judgment herein was affirmed. In stating the case and its result, the original opinion states that the appellant was convicted of "horse theft." This was an inadvertence, for he was in fact convicted of "receiving stolen property." It is now urged for the first time, on motion for rehearing, that the judgment should be reversed because the indictment alleged appellant received the property from some person to the grand jurors unknown, whereas, upon the trial, the testimony of the accomplice makes it reasonably certain that he received it from one Hawkins. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the grand jury had been derelict in their duty in the investigation of this matter. Enough facts outside the accomplice testimony support the action of the grand jury. The accomplice was not before the grand jury, and could not have been forced to testify in regard to this matter, for he himself was indicted and convicted for the same transaction, and was, by an agreement on his part, used as a witness on the trial of this defendant. No amount of diligence could have obtained this testimony from said accomplice; and the mere fact of an agreement between the state and the accomplice that he should testify on appellant's trial does not show or tend to show any dereliction on the part of the grand jury in this respect. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.

HURT, P. J., absent.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Crofford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1907
  • State v. Crofford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1907
  • Armstrong v. State, 18385.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 10, 1936
    ...not know such name is sufficient to sustain the allegation that same was unknown. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, § 2444; Wright v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 45 S.W. 1016." Upon another trial testimony should be introduced in support of the allegation that the name was The judgment is reversed and......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT