Rye v. State

Citations

• 8 Tex. Ct. App. 153

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence must correspond with the allegations and be confined to the point in issue, or tend to prove the issue, or constitute a link in the chain of proofi to the exclusion of collateral circumstances not capable of generating any reasonable presumption or inference respecting the principal fact or matter in dispute.</p> <p>2. Murder—Evidence.—In a trial for murder, the State proved that the corpse of the deceased was found in the woods, and that the discoverers were said to be two persons not produced as witnesses. On cross-examination, the defence asked what had become of the discoverers; and the court excluded the inquiry as irrelevant. The record discloses no effort by the defence to obtain the testimony of the men inquired about. Held, that no error in the ruling is apparent.</p> <p>3. Charge of the Court. — No particular formula is prescribed for a charge on the requisite cogency of circumstantial evidence. An instruction on this or any other subject is sufficient if correct in substance, and so expressed as to be readily comprehended by the jury.</p> <p>4. Evidence. — In a trial for the murder of a person alleged to be “ an adult male white person, whose name is to the grand jury unknown,” it was not . incumbent on the State to prove that the name of the deceased was unknown to the grand jury or the prosecution, there being nothing disclosed to indicate that it was known.</p> <p>5. Same. —Proof that the deceased was a horse-thief could in no respect palliate the criminality of his deliberate assassination.</p>