Case Name: FULLER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-11-12
Citations: 265 S.W. 1033
Docket Number: No. 8191
Parties: FULLER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 1033–1034

Head Matter:
FULLER v. STATE.
(No. 8191.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 12, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey; 1091 (11) — Bills of except tion in question and answer form not considered.
Bills of exception in question and answer form will not be considered.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;784( I)— Refusal to submit law of circumstantial evidence held reversible error.
In prosecution for robbery by means ( of threats, in company with two other men, refusal to give requested charge on law of circumstantial evidence held reversible error, where evidence showed accused, though present when threat's were made, said nothing.
Appeal from District Court, Clay County ,; Paul Donald, Judge.
Tobe Fuller was convicted of robbery by means of threats, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
C. O. Taylor, of Wichita Falls, and H. M. Muse, of Henrietta, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Groyer C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Clay county of the offense of robbery committed by means of threats, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
For the reason that most of the bills of exception are in question and answer form they cannot be considered by this court. The charge of the court submitting the law of principals was supported by the facts. The learned trial judge fell into error in declining to submit the law of circumstantial evidence. A special charge was presented upon this phase of the case.
We gather from the record that certain turkeys of the prosecuting witness had been stolen, and it is suggested in the testimony that this appellant and one Morris were connected with the taking of the turkeys. It is shown that appellant and Morris went to see said prosecutor prior to the date of the alleged robbery. Following this, prosecutor went to Oklahoma. On the day of his return one Sparks went to him and told him that they wanted to see him. Accompanying Sparks, prosecutor went to the place where appellant and Morris were. Morris demanded of prosecutor $300, and made threats in that connection. Appellant said nothing. Prosecutor went to a bank and obtained $300 and carried it to where -appellant, Morris, and Sparks were, and handed it to Sparks. This is the substance of the testimony. Appellant may be guilty, but if so his guilt is an inference arising from circumstances. He made no threats; he received no money from prosecutor.
For the error of the court in declining to submit the law of circumstantial evidence, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded; and it is so ordered.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes