Court Opinion

ID: 9660547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:15:43.455624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.405180
License: Public Domain

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
W. C. DAVIS, Judge.
On original submission of this case, the panel found that the evidence in the case was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the judgment was affirmed in a per curiam opinion.
The State’s evidence in this case was circumstantial. The appellant and the deceased were the only persons in the house at the time of the stabbing. As the original opinion notes, “[t]he wound was either self-inflicted or inflicted by Wright.” On the night of the stabbing, the police found the deceased in the hallway of the home, with a knife in her hand. Doctor John Graham, medical examiner for Dallas County, testifying for the State, stated that it was possible that the wound was self-inflicted. The knife penetrated the deceased’s chest, between the ribs, three and one-half inches. Doctor Graham testified that a forceful blow to that part of the body could have penetrated up to ten inches.
The State’s evidence, as the panel opinion correctly notes, is “simply not persuasive.”1 However, the panel arrives at its determination that the evidence is sufficient by finding that when the appellant took the stand and testified, the trial judge, as the trier of fact, was entitled to accept or reject any or all of the testimony. The rationale advanced in the original opinion is that once the trial judge concluded that the appellant’s version of the stabbing was fabricated, the only other explanation was that the appellant killed his wife, thereby rendering the evidence sufficient.
It is true that the trial judge, sitting as the trier of the facts, is entitled to accept or reject any or all of the testimony adduced. Johnson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The fact that the trial judge was entitled to disregard the appellant’s testimony does not mean that the missing elements of the offense are supplied by rejecting this testimony. The burden of proof is on the State, and it is incumbent on the State to prove every element of the offense. See Grant v. State, 566 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The evidence in this case is not rendered sufficient by the trial judge’s apparent disbelief of appellant’s testimony.
It is well established that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the circumstances do not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused and proof amounting only to a strong suspicion is insufficient. Stogsdill v. State, 552 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Flores v. State, 551 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
“The rules of circumstantial evidence do not require that the circumstances should to a moral certainty actually exclude every hypothesis that the act may have been committed by another person, 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 not be out of harmony with the evidence.”
Flores v. State, supra.
Mere presence at the scene of the crime alone is not sufficient to conclude *841that the accused committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 537 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). While it is a circumstance which tends to prove guilt, it is necessary that this circumstance be combined with other facts to show that the accused is guilty of the crime. Johnson v. State, supra. In this case, there is nothing other than appellant’s presence at the scene which would tend to show his involvement in the stabbing.
A conviction on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the circumstances do not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused; proof amounting only to a strong suspicion is insufficient. Young v. State, 544 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The evidence in this case is clearly insufficient to show that the appellant stabbed the deceased.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted.
The judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
DOUGLAS, J., dissents for the reasons set out in the opinion on original submission.

. Even the State in its brief does not appear to be soundly convinced that the appellant committed the act. The brief states, “Although it was possible that the deceased’s wound was self inflicted and that she was conscious when she was stabbed, it was equally possible that the deceased was passed out when the wound was inflicted.” (Emphasis added)