Case Name: Ratio P. Parish v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-03-12
Citations: 85 Tex. Crim. 75
Docket Number: No. 5154
Parties: Ratio P. Parish v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 75–82

Head Matter:
Ratio P. Parish v. The State.
No. 5154.
Decided March 12, 1919.
1. —Murder—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of murder, and a conviction of that offense upon circumstantial evidence, the same was' sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Hypothesis of Guilt—Buie Stated.
In order to convict on circumstantial evidence it is not essential that the circumstances proved should to a moral certainty actually exclude every hypothesis that the act may have been committed by another person, known or unknown; but the hypothesis intended is a reasonable one consistent with the circumstances and facts proved, and the supposition that the act may have been committed by another person must be in harmony with the evidence. Following Wallace v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 341, and other cases, distinguishing Pogue v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 283.
3. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Buie Stated.
When cases depend upon circumstantial evidence alone it is essential to prove each necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt before it can become the basis of any inference adverse to the accused; it is not, however, required that each fact thus proved be, standing alone, of such weight as to establish guilt. Following Marshal v. State, 5 Texas Crim. App., 273, and other cases.
4. —Same—Case Stated—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
While probably no one of the facts proved in the instant case would alone support the verdict, yet they being consistent with each other, with the main fact in issue, with the guilt of the accused, and inconsistent with his innocene, the verdict is upheld by their cumulative and combined strength, each forming a thread in the cord of circumstances which drew and bound the minds of the jury to the conclusion which produced a reasonable and moral certainty that the defendant took part in the homicide. Following Hocker v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 359.
Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Anderson, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Smith & Abernathy, Carlos Bee, and Brooks, Hart & Woodward, for appellant.
On question of circumstantial evidence; Barnes v. State, 41 Texas 342; Curry v. State, 7 Texas Crim. Rep., 267; Washington v. State, 16 Texas Crim. Rep., 376; Lowe v. State, 77 S. W. Rep., 220; Warren v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 218, 106 S. W. Rep., 132; Hernandez v. State, 77 S. W. Rep., 840; Pogue v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 283.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
The conviction is for murder and punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years. The evidence is circumstantial.
The deceased Eliseo Ornelas, appears to have been a Mexican, owner of a Ford automobile which he operated for hire; that during the night of October 9th., appellant in company with one Foreman, both of them being soldiers in the United States army, made a- contract with the deceased to take them in his car to a point in the vicinity of San Antonio; that the two soldiers entered the car with the driver. One of them sitting on the front and the other on the back seat. The cousin of the deceased suggested or wanted to £o along but the appellant and his companion objected on the ground that they were to bring others back in the car and there would not be room. Deceased appears to have been a boy about eighteen years of age. He was found the following morning about seven o'clock by some persons passing along the road. He had wounds- upon his head, his skull was crushed and he was in an unconscious and dying condition. He was in the road and near his body were automobile tracks corresponding in size and description to those which were on the deceased's car. There was in the road near these tracks and not far from the body, some blood in several' places and evidence of a fight or struggle having taken place. The deceased had a small amount of money, between seven and eight dollars at the time he made the contract and this had been taken from him and his pockets turned inside out, though his watch and chain had not been removed. Near the body there was found some tobacco and cigaretts and a button from a soldier's coat. The car was found on the morning of the 10th. of October at a point some distance from the scene of the homicide. It was located near some buildings that were being newly constructed in Camp Travis. There were stains of blood at various places upon the car, engine, foot-board and running-board. In the ear was found a cap which was identified as belonging to deceased and which had a dent in it, indicating that it had been struck by some object. While the persons in charge of the work and the sheriff were examining the car some one of them handed the sheriff a coat. This was a military coat and there was evidence introduced identifying the coat as belonging to the appellant. There was evidence also that the coat was of a different character from that used by the other soldiers at Camp Travis, it being similar to those formerly used by soldiers, and it was claimed by the witnessess that it had been brought from another camp at which the appellant and his companion were formerly stationed. One of the buttons had been torn from the coat and the button picked near the body of deceased was of the same character as those remaining on the coat, though there is nothing to show that buttons on that coat were peculiar or different from those on the clothing worn by the numerous soldiers stationed at Camp Travis. There was a small quantity of blood on the coat. The person who handed the coat to the sheriff was not introduced as a witness and it is only from circumstances that the inference is to be drawn that the coat was picked up by one of the several people who were attracted to the scene of the car after it was found, and while it was undergoing examination by the sheriff.
A very short time after the homicide appellant and Foreman were thansferred, with the company to which they belonged from Camp Travis at San Antonio to Camp Bowie in Ft. Worth, and were there arrested by the sheriff, being identified by the brother of deceased who was present at the time that the contract between the deceased and the appellant and his companion was entered into.
No questions other than the sufficiency of the evidence are presented. We are unable to reach the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.