Court Opinion

ID: 9647982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:58:05.112596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:55.137852
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for two reasons.
*345First, it is contended that the evidence wholly fails to establish the essential averment that the strangulation which produced the death of the deceased was caused by a wire because of the testimony of Dr. Williams that the indentation on the neck of the deceased was compatible with a small rope.
We do not consider the statement of Dr. Williams as rendering the evidence insufficient to show that the strangulation which produced the death of the deceased was caused by a wire. As shown in our original opinion, the evidence reflects that when the body of the deceased was found there was a wire around the neck impressed into the flesh. Dr. Williams, in expressing his opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation, testified that upon his examination of the body of the deceased he found an indenture around the neck between one and one and one half inches deep and that it could have been caused by a wire.
In homicide cases the cause of death may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Tellez v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 456, 286 S.W. 2d 154. We find the evidence sufficient to show that the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation with a wire as charged in the indictment.
Appellant next contends that the evidence relied upon by the state to sustain the conviction does not satisfy the requirements of the circumstantial evidence rule in that it does not exclude every other hypothesis except that of his guilt.
Appellant insists that the record, at the most, suggests a design on the part of him and his brother to steal cattle and other personalty from the deceased; that such proof would justify the jury in concluding that he and his brother equally had motive and opportunity to kill the deceased; that such circumstances might support an inference not only that he had something to do with the death of the deceased but would equally support an inference that his brother was the main actor and that appellant’s participation was only that of an accessory which he could not be under the statute.
As pointed out in our original opinion, the court charged upon and applied the law of principals in submitting the issue of appellant’s guilt to the jury. We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s contention and remain convinced that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of *346the jury finding him guilty and to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt.
The motion is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.