Case ID: sw_133/html/0881-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTINEZ v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 18, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 784) — Instructions — Circumstantial Evidence.
    In a trial for larceny of a hog, an eyewitness testified to the taking. Accomplices, who testified that decedent brought fresh pork to a camp, were corroborated by the finding of parts of the hog where one of the witnesses stated he had helped to conceal it and by other facts. Held, that it was unnecessary to instruct on circumstantial evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other casés, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1883-1888, 1922, 1960; Dec. Dig: § 784.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1159) —. Review — Evidence — Sufficiency.
    The Court of Criminal Appeals will not disturb a verdict, as not sustained _ by the evidence, where the testimony, if believed, justifies it.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.]
    Appeal from District Court, Dimmitt County ; J. P. Mullaly, Judge.
    Ramon Martinez was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & R'ep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

The appellant in this case was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a’ term of two years in the penitentiary, in the district court of Dimmitt county, being charged with the theft of a hog.

1. The appellant complains that the court erred in not giving in charge the law controlling circumstantial evidence., There was positive proof by an eyewitness that appellant took the hog. Other witnesses swore he brought fresh hog meat to the camp, it is true the 'court held all these witnesses were accomplices; but they, were corroborated by the head and other parts of the hog being found at the place where one of the witnesses stated he had helped conceal it, and by other facts. Under this state of case, it is not necessary tp give such charge. Hardin v. State, 8 Tex. App. 657; Makinson v. State, 16 Tex. App. 143. It was necessary for the witnesses to be corroborated 'by other testimony, and the court gave a proper charge in regard thereto.

2. In the second bill of exceptions complaint is made that the court erred in using the following language in his charge: “You are instructed that Juanita Lopez, and other witnesses named, are all accomplices.” When we read the entire paragraph relating to accomplice testimony, we find it worded in accordance with the rule laid down in the case of Campbell v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 123 S. W. 584. In fact, the charge is almost in the exact language of the one there approved.

3. The only other ground assigned is that the evidence is insufficient. We have carefully read the record and the evidence. The jury heard the testimony,' and in their* opinion appellant was guilty; and we are not disposed to disturb the verdict where the testimony, if believed, justifies the jury in so finding.

The judgment is affirmed.