Poyner v. the State

5 Citing cases

  1. Ross v. the State

    71 Tex. Crim. 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)   Cited 3 times

    Rep., 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Thompson, 55 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Schwartz, 53 Tex. Crim. 451, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Poyner, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. Rep., 376; Givens, 35 Tex.Crim. Rep., 34 S.W. Rep., 626; Blanco, 57 S.W. Rep., 828.

  2. Burnaman v. the State

    70 Tex. Crim. 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)   Cited 6 times

    " And as again laid down in section 873, subdivision 3, page 555: "If impeaching testimony can only be used by the jury to impeach a witness it is not necessary to charge on the subject at all. Brown v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 170, 5 S.W. Rep., 685; Magee v. State, 43 S.W. Rep., 512; Robinson v. State, 63 S.W. Rep., 869; Newman v. State, 70 S W. Rep., 951; Watson v. State, 52 Tex. Crim. 85, 105 S.W. Rep., 509; Waters v. State, 54 Tex. Crim. 322, 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Thompson v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 120, 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Schwartz v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 449, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Poyner v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. Rep., 376; Givens v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 563, 34 S.W. Rep., 626; Blanco v. State, 57 S.W. Rep., 828."

  3. Dugat v. the State

    67 Tex. Crim. 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)   Cited 4 times
    In Dugat v. State, 67 Tex. Crim. 46, 148 S.W. Rep. 789, we said that where the accused had stolen cattle in his pasture in one county, it was immaterial in a prosecution in that county whether the cattle were taken in another county or not.

    But there is no danger of a conviction for stealing a saddle and bridle under a charge of theft of a horse, or receiving said horse after it was stolen.' See also Thompson v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 120, 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Waters v. State, 54 Tex. Crim. 327, 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Schwartz v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 451, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Watson v. State, 52 Tex. Crim. 90, 105 S.W. Rep., 509; Poyner v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. 376; Givens v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 563; Blanco v. State, 57 S.W. Rep., 828; Magee v. State, 43 S.W. Rep., 512; Robinson v. State, 63 S.W. Rep., 870; Newman v. State, 70 S.W. Rep., 953."

  4. Magee v. State

    NO. 14-16-00408-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 29, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Citing several cases for support, appellant represents that "[f]or over a century Texas case law has . . . require[d] that the jury be charged that statements of the accomplice made out of court cannot be used to corroborate the accomplice." See Thompson v. State, 78 S.W. 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 1904); Barnard v. State, 76 S.W. 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903); Poyner v. State, 51 S.W. 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899); Clay v. State, 51 S.W. 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899). We agree these cases correctly state Texas law prohibiting an accomplice from corroborating her in-court testimony with out-of-court statements.

  5. Jaffe v. Deckard

    261 S.W. 390 (Tex. Civ. App. 1924)   Cited 15 times
    In Jaffe v. Deckard (Tex.Civ.App.) 261 S.W. 390, it was said that a bill of exceptions complaining of statement of counsel in argument to jury, which, under some circumstances, might have been legitimate argument, without disclosing the circumstances surrounding the statement, was too indefinite.

    "The court did not permit any part of the conversation between the witness Alice Deckard and Katie Mae Deckard to be introduced in evidence." These bills do not show a violation of the rule announced in Pefferling v. State, 40 Tex. 487, and Poyner v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 51 S.W. 376. Appellee was entitled to prove that she made complaint. The bills do not show that she named the defendant as the rapist during her conversation with her mother.