Herbert Hubert Cooper, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that evidence of a theft occurring immediately after an assault is sufficient to infer the assault was committed "in the course of" the theft, even absent other evidence of intent, and reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment while affirming the trial court's conviction. Justice KEASLER, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the result and emphasized the inferential rule, while Justice MEYERS dissented, arguing that additional evidence of intent is required and that the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.