Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

415 S.W.2d 653

Zulpo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1967-05-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1971

2 state decisions

Relies on Zulpo v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-05-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

¶2The offense is indecent exposure to a child; the punishment, 10 years.

¶3Except for the fact that the exposure was to different girls under 16 years of age, the facts and the grounds of error are not materially different from those before us in the appeal of the same appellant in Zulpo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided. The opinion in the said companion case controls the disposition of this appeal.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

ONION, Judge.

¶5(Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part).

¶6For the same reasons stated in our opinion in Zulpo v. State, 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided, Judge MORRISON and this writer concur in the result reached, but we cannot agree that oral stipulations, not in accordance in Article 1.15, C.C.P., may be considered in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence.

/415/sw2d/653 · .json · Public domain