Eckert v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 105

Syllabus

<p>1. Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of the Court.—When the evidence adduced to inculpate the defendant was purely circumstantial, it was error to refuse an appropriate instruction on that character of proof, notwithstanding the corpus delicti was proved by positive testimony.</p> <p>2. Same — Confessions. — In a trial for an assault with intent to murder one K., it was in proof that he, while riding a sorrel horse, was shot by some unknown person, and that, later on the same day, the defendant, who had been in pursuit of a sorrel horse which had been stolen from him, stated that he had shot at the man who had taken his horse. Except by inference from this statement and circumstances, it was not in proof that K. was the man to whom the defendant referred. Held,, that the defendant’s statement was not “ a confession,” but was itself in the nature of circumstantial evidence. Positive proof of the statement, therefore, did not justify the refusal of a proper instruction on circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>3. Evidence. — If others besides the assaulted party witnessed the assault, their testimony was primary evidence of it, and was competent without accounting for the non-production of the assaulted party.</p>