Court Opinion

ID: 9768491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:06:00.382867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:41.341323
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant contends that a charge on circumstantial evidence should have been given in connection with the proof of the identity of the accused as being the person who had been convicted in the prior offense alleged for enhancement purposes. Our original opinion disposed, we think properly, of the necessity of such a charge as related to the main fact in the case; that is, the breaking and entry by the appellant. It is only where the evidence of the main facts essential to guilt is established by circumstantial evidence that such a charge need be given. 24 Texas Juris., Sec. 101, p. 587; Wilson v. State, 154 Texas Cr. Rep. 59, 225 S.W. 2d 173. Proof of the prior conviction was not a main fact essential to guilt, and no such charge is required in connection with such proof. The proof on this question was similar in many respects to the type of proof approved by this court in Handy v. State, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 258, 268 S.W. 2d 182, and we find the same sufficient. *463Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.