Cunningham v. State

Citations

• 20 Tex. Ct. App. 162
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>li Practice.—Continuance is properly refused if it be sought to secure testimony which, in the light of the evidence adduced, is not probably true.</p> <p>2. Theft—Evidence—Fact Case.— See the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to establish the identity of the accused, and to support a conviction for theft.</p> <p>3. Same—Surprise. — The primary remedy against a surprise by reason of the self-contradictory testimony of a witness is' by seeking a continuance, or a postponement of the trial to a subsequent day of the term. But see the opinion for evidence held not to operate as a surprise.</p> <p>4. Same — Charge of the Court — Circumstantial Evidence.— This court will not reverse a judgment of conviction because of an erroneous charge upon the weight of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a bill of exceptions or a showing of manifest prejudice to the rights of the defendant.</p>