Court Opinion

ID: 9677830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:01:29.934345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:58.848526
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, appellant identifies a sentence in our opinion which could be interpreted as an improper presumption against the appellant of acts now shown to have been committed by him. See Culmore v. State, 447 S.W.2d 915, 916 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). We withdraw the statement, “The only way that those individuals could have obtained the checks was for appellant to give the checks to them.” It was our intent to indicate that the circumstantial evidence against the accused was sufficient for the jury, as a rational trier of fact, to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have considered all of appellant’s points of error of the motion for rehearing and they are OVERRULED.