TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gilbert v. State

B. F. Gilbert v. the State

Gilbert v. State, 39 S.W. 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 10, 1897
Docket
No. 1295.
Judges
Davidson
Citations
39 S.W. 57237 Tex. Crim. 3011897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 94
Headnotes
Confession—Corroboration of. While it is true that the extra judicial verbal confession of a defendant alone will' not support a judgment of conviction, such a confession will be sufficient to support the conviction when the facts and circumstances tend strongly to show its truth.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Erath. Tried below before Hon., T. B. King, County Judge. Appeal from a conviction for adultery; penalty, a fine of §100. The indictment charged appellant with adultery with one Cordia Gilbert, a married woman. H. C. Gilbert, who was the husband of the woman, testified, that defendant was his second cousin and boarded with him and his wife. He testified to facts and circumstances which aroused his suspicions, and that on mentioning the matter to defendant, defendant confessed to him that he had had intercourse with his wife, Cordia, from six to ten times. He made the same confession to seven other parties, who testified on the trial, and to the witness, I. B. Adams, he said, “he had had carnal intercourse with Cordia Gilbert, and that he was sorry he had not known about it sooner.”

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

Opinion of the Court — Davidson

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of adultery, and fined in the sum of §100; hence this appeal. A jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court. The grounds of the motion for a new trial are all based upon the supposed insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the court. The contention of appellant is that the conviction is based upon “the uncorroborated confession” of the defendant. It has been held in this State that the extrajudicial verbal confession of a defendant alone will not support a judgment of conviction. This statement of the law is correct, but it does not apply to this case.

*302 The defendant made quite a nmabeir of confessions to various persons as to his adulterous intercourse with his alleged paramour, on various and divers occasions, extending over several months of time, and expressed regret and sorrow at the fact that he had not ascertained earlier that he could have carried on said adulterous intercourse. The facts and circumstances tend strongly to sustain these confessions. We deem it useless to go over the testimony and cull these facts. We think the testimony is sufficient, and the judgment of the court was properly rendered against him. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hollingsworth v. State182 S.W. 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Hollingsworth v. State182 S.W. 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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