Tate v. State
Burrell Tate v. State.
Headnotes
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted of cow theft and given the lowest penalty.
As stated by appellant in his brief, the sole question in this case was ivhether or not the evidence showed or tended to show that the State’s witness Hobbs was an accomplice in the theft so as to require the court to submit that question to the jury. The court charged that Stanfield was an accomplice and gave a correct charge as to the necessity of the corroboration of his testimony. No complaint is made of this.
We have carefully studied the evidence in this ease and in our opinion the evidence does not show or tend to show that Hobbs was an accomplice so as to authorize or require the court to submit that question to the jury, and the court did not err in not submitting it to the jury. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence. It in no way connects Hobbs with the theft so as to show or tend to show that he had anything to do therewith or was in any way an accomplice in the theft. ' The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.