Court Opinion

ID: 9668790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:26:27.477332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.298202
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
Disproving the testimony of the accomplice witness Dykes that appellant did not accompany him to Holland but remained in Austin, and supporting the testimony of Mrs. Cantrell, the state’s evidence established that appellant was the third of the trio who were riding in a 1956 Chevrolet convertible in Holland on August 5; that the three came together to the home of appellant’s mother; were last seen by her as they left together in such 1956 Chevrolet convertible about 7 or 7:30 P.M., and were seen together in the drug store earlier in the afternoon.
The evidence establishes that the man and woman who appellant took to his mother’s home burglarized the "drug store. They were convicted for that offense.
*667All of the evidence shows that there was a third person present at the burglary and that three persons fled after the burglary in the 1956 Chevrolet convertible.
The case was submitted to the jury as one of circumstantial evidence.
Mrs. Cantrell’s identification of appellant, together with the facts and circumstances mentioned, should be held sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that appellant participated in the burglary.
As I see it, Mrs. Cantrell simply admitted the well known fact that human testimony, however honest, is not infallible. As she saw it, appellant was the man who got out of the convertible and walked into the street and then toward the door which she heard broken and through which entry was made by force into the drug store.
The hypothesis that appellant left his companions before the burglary and another person of striking resemblance took his place and assisted in the burglary does not appeal to me as a reasonable one.