TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McCollum v. State

Howard McCollum v. the State

McCollum v. State, 91 S.W.2d 1067 (Tex. Crim. App. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 26, 1936
Docket
No. 17968.
Judges
Christian
Citations
91 S.W.2d 1067130 Tex. Crim. 1051936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 117
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Christian

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

Forrest Panther, the injured party, testified that on the 16th day of January, 1935, appellant and three others exhibited pistols and took from his possession a Ford automobile. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant admitted his presence at the scene of the robbery. However, he declared that his companions had forced him to accompany them and that, fearing bodily harm at their hands, he remained at the place while they committed the offense. He testified further that he took no part in the robbery.

Panther was robbed near the city of Tyler about 12:30 in the morning. Appellant testified on cross-examination that several hours after the robbery of Panther his companions robbed a bank in the town of Buffalo, while he waited outside in the automobile. His testimony was to the further effect that he and his companions then drove to Huntsville. He received part of the money taken from the bank. The testimony concerning the robbery of the bank at Buffalo was objected to by appellant. The opinion is expressed that the objection was not well taken. One of the exceptions to the rule inhibiting proof of extraneous' offenses is that proof thereof is admissible if it tends to show intent when intent is an issue. Appellant’s testimony, if believed, militated against the conclusion that there was any intent on his part to rob Panther. Proof of the fact that within seven or eight hours after the robbery of Panther appellant and the men who committed said robbery perpetrated the robbery of the bank at Buffalo tended to show that appellant intentionally participated in the robbery of Panther. Overstreet v. State, 150 S. W., 899 .

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1937: 11971: 11972: 119372026peak 1937 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chapman v. State486 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)
  2. Buster v. State470 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  3. Webster v. State109 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1937)

Most recent

  1. Chapman v. State486 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)
  2. Buster v. State470 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  3. Webster v. State109 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1937)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Overstreet v. State, 150 S.W. 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list