Case ID: sw_277/html/1069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAMILTON v. STATE.
    (No. 9608.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 2, 1925.)
    Infants <©=>20 — Evidence held not to sustain conviction for contributing to delinquency of minor.
    Evidence held not to sustain conviction of encouraging and contributing to delinquency of minor by persuading and soliciting minor to engage in act of sodomy with defendant.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court at Law; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    Fred Hamilton was convicted of encouraging and contributing to the delinquency of a minor and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Baskin, Eastus & Greines, of Fort Worth, fior appellant. .
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is encouraging and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and the punishment is a fine of |250 and six months’ confinement in jail.

The information charges that the appellant asked, persuaded, solicited, and offered money to the minor to procure him to engage in an act of sodomy with him.- The prosecuting witness and the appellant were found under one of the loading docks at a warehouse in the nighttime. The minor was 16 years of age. The testimony clearly shows that the appellant was very drunk at the time, and the prosecuting witness would do no more than say that appellant told him he wanted him to go down there with him and gave him a dollar to go with him. He affirmatively testifies that appellant did nothing to him after they got to the place; in fact, that the appellant did not touch him. After being led by the state’s attorney, he testifies that it was his opinion that the appellant wanted him to go down there for the purpose of engaging in an act of sodomy. He makes it clear from his testimony, however, that appellant said nothing of this sort to him, and merely makes the statement that he thought that was what he was going to do. This 'testimony is not sufficient. Under our law, a party cannot be convicted on the mere surmise or supposition of a witness. It takes testimony to overcome the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and the record in this case fails to disclose any evidence that would do either.

Because the testimony is wholly insufficient, the judgment is reversed and the eausej remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by (the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      
        other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes