Case Name: Jennie Lou BOYD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-11-26
Citations: 32 S.W.2d 1113
Docket Number: No. 13640
Parties: Jennie Lou BOYD v. STATE.
Judges: HAWKINS, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 32
Pages: 1113–1113

Head Matter:
Jennie Lou BOYD v. STATE.
No. 13640.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 26, 1930.
Davenport & Crain, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is robbery; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.
From the state's testimony the' following appears: J. W. Morgan was accosted by two women. They seized him, and one of them held a knife at his throat while the other rifled his pockets and took therefrom $60 in money.
The appellant was arrested soon after the transaction, and about her premises were found some articles which were claimed by Morgan to have been in the pocketbook that had been taken from him. The appellant testified and denied that she was a participant in the robbery. Her identity, however, was vouched for by the testimony of the injured party. There were some additional circumstances not necessary to relate which tended to connect her with the transaction.
There are no bills of exceptions challenging the ruling of the court in the admission of the testimony. There are two objections to; the charge of the court. In one of them, the complaint is that the evidence was not such as to justify the submission of the law of principals. In the other, the complaint is made that it shifts the burden of proof. Morgan's testimony that his assailants were two in number clearly justifies the submission of the issue of principals. The fifth subdivision of the charge submitting the issue of alibi is in language, in substance, such as has been approved on many occasions. It was assailed upon the ground that it shifted the burden of proof. We think it is not justly subject to that criticism, but, on the contrary, sufficiently presented the issue. See McCoy v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 551, 120 S. W. 858, and other eases collated in Branch's Crim. Law, p. 13, § 32.
The judgment is affirmed.
HAWKINS, J., absent.