Jack v. State

Citations

• 20 Tex. Ct. App. 656
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Evidence—Presumption.— The fact that the accused gave different and recently stolen articles away at the same time warrants, if unexplained, the conclusion that they were stolen at the same time.</p> <p>2. Same.— It is the province of the jury to determine the value of the stolen articles in a case wherein the testimony conflicts on that point, and, if the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, it will not be disturbed by this court.</p> <p>3. Same — Circumstantial Evidence — Charge of the Court.— The law of circumstantial evidence should be charged only in cases in which the inculpatory evidence is wholly of a circumstantial character.</p> <p>4. Practice —New Trial — Misconduct of the Jury.— It is a well settled rule of practice that misconduct of the jury will not be ground for new trial unless it be shown to be such as affected the fairness and impartiality of the trial. See the opinion in extenso for misconduct imputed to a juror and relied upon as a ground for new trial, held insufficient. But, quaere: Whs the remark of the impugned juror misconduct within the meaning of the statute ? Note the comments of the court on the question.</p>