94 Tex. Crim.

Volume 94 — Texas Criminal Reports

222 opinions

94 Tex. Crim. 1Wimberley v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 3Berry v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 5Harris v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 8Rosamond v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 12Haag v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 14Sagu v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 18Gould v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 23Cassel v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 31Abbot v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 31Abbott v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Hon. D. F. Singleton. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
94 Tex. Crim. 38Davenport v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Hon. Thos. F. Teel. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, thirty days confinement in the county jail. The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 40Hendley v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Hon. J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year and six months imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 43Sackheim v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 46Holt v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 52Daniels v. State (1923)
Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Continuance—Want of Diligence. Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquor, the application for continuance showed a total want of diligence, the same was correctly overruled, and the evidence sustaining the conviction, and there being no error in overruling the motion for a new trial, the judgment must be affirmed.
94 Tex. Crim. 53Bitgert v. State (1923)
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson. Tried below before the Hon. E'. A. McDowell. Appeal from a conviction of failing to render aid in a collision by an automobile against some children walking the street; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion- states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 55Moran v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 58Simmons v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 60Williams v. State (1923)
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of the Evidence. Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the law, the evidence supported the conviction, there is no reversible error. 2. —Same—Name of Defendant — Bill of Exceptions. Where the bill of exceptions complained to the action of the court in asking defendant in the presence of the jury what his name was; he being indicted in two counts under different given names, there was no error; besides the bill of exceptions was defective in not being approved, and the so-called bystanders bill did not comply with the law, and the jurats affixed thereto was taken before defendant’s attorney, and besides it was only signed by two persons which is not sufficient. Following Landrum v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 666. 3. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Bystander’s Bill. Where there was no evidence of the refusal of the trial judge to sign and approve the bill of exceptions, and besides a statement of that fact by the bystanders who authenticate the bill, is not sufficient. Following Washington v. State, 58 Texas, Crim. Rep., 345. 4. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Intoxicating Liquor. A bill of exceptions complaining of the court’s instruction to the jury that whisky is spiritous liquor capable of producing intoxication is without merit, the rule being that whisky is intoxicating. — Following Banks v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 438. 5. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Name of Defendant — Additional Charge. Where defendant’s counsel stated that his client was charged in one count of the indictment under one name, and in another count under another name and that the jury did not know who they were trying, when the court gave an additional charge that unless the defendant suggested that he was not indicted by his true name, it shall be taken that his name is truly set forth, there is no reversible error. 6. —Same—Rehearing—Record on Appeal — Recitation in Judgment — Bill of Exceptions Necessary. A recitation in the judgment that the accused excepted to- the refusal to quash the array is not sufficient to take the place of a bill of exceptions; nor is the recital in the judgment that a continuance was refused to which defendant excepted sufficient to supply the place of a bill of exceptions.— Following Welsey v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 299, and other cases.
94 Tex. Crim. 63Taylor v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 67Bryant v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 69Utsler v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 71Muse v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 74Kocich v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 77Bailey and Harvey v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 80Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 87Boatwright v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 96Colter v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 97Henderson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 101Mitchell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 103Culver v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 106Farley v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 109Frey and Heller v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 112Copeland v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 114Petty v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 119Tucker v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 123Hicks v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 126Bryan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 127Pinkerton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 133Bruni v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable S. G. Tayloe. Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, fifteen years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 137Hull and Colthorp v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 139Mitchell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 140Brown v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 144Whitten v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 145Dossett v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 147Walling v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 149Staggs v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 150Hightower v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 151Petrea v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 155Hunt v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 157Ex Parte Underwood (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 159Carson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 161Anderson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 164Baeza v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 167Copeland v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 169Van Arsdale v. State (1923)
District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Robert B. Seay. Appeal from a conviction of negligent homicide of the second degree; penalty, one year confinement in the' county jail. The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 175Martin v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 179Daniels v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 182Harris v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 184Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 191Lumus v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 192Wells v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 193Vitrano v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 195Young v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 199Cooper v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 199Copper v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 204De La O v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 207Stembridge v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 211Petty v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 216Atchison v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 219Hodge v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 220Reese v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 226Enfield v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 228May v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 231Rutledge v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 233Lee v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 236Oats v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 238Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 239Lee v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 241Gillispie v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 242Bell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 243Warren v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 244Hollingsworth v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 246Storey v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 247Bayless v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 250Bramblett v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 252Wimberly v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 252Wimberley v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 257Ex Parte Cannon (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 260Railsback v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 264Mathewson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 266Bell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 268White v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 268Fite v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 270Holloway v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 272Mendez v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 274Woods v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 277Penny v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 278Hooper v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 280Samaras v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 283Nantz v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 288Newton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 292Huffhines v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 295Forrester v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 295Forester v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 297Cox v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 299Claxton v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 300Davis v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 301White v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 303Nettles v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 306Farris v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 307Ex Parte Lowe (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 313Ex Parte Ross (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 316Linder v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 328Ex Parte Good (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 329Thomas v. State (1923)
The opinion, states the cáse.
94 Tex. Crim. 330Ex Parte Youngblood v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 345Steele v. State (1922)
94 Tex. Crim. 348Wilson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 353Moses v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 357McCowan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 358Tonnahill v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 359Helton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 364Castle v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 365Deel v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 366Stanton v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 371Skinner v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 373Wilson v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 375Stevens v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 377Wells v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 377Wells v. State (1923)
1. —Murder—Copy of Indictment. Where the indictment was filed on the fifth of May, 1922, and defendant was at large on bail, and on the thirtieth of said month he filed a motion demanding a certified copy of the indictment, which was thereupon delivered to the defendant, there was no reversible error. 2. —Two Days Delay — Practice in Trial Court. The refusal to delay the trial under the circumstances, the court appears to have been justified under the authorities, Following Venn v. State, 86, Texas Grim. Rep., 633, and other cases. 3. —Evidence—Hearsay—Practice in Trial Court. Where defendant complained that the State proved by hearsay evidence that the defendant had married a negro woman, but the record showed that defendant testified that he was a half-breed Indian, was divorced and thereafter had married a half-breed mulatto negro, this was not hearsay, and where the court had prepared a charge withdrawing this testimony, but counsel for defendant objected, there was no reversible error. 4. —Rehearing—Evidence—Withdrawal by the Court. This court must adhere to its original opinion, that under the facts of this case the evidence with reference to marrying a negro woman was not of such harmful character that it could not have been withdrawn, and the appellant objecting to the withdrawal, there was no reversible error. 5. — Application for Second Motion for Rehearing. Believing that the application for permission to file a second motion for rehearing presents nothing calling for favorable action by this court, the same is denied.
94 Tex. Crim. 382Newton v. State (1922)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 391Cotton v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward. Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
94 Tex. Crim. 393Claxton v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 393Rabon v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 395Eckert v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 398Dobbs v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 401Vercher v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 401Vircher v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 403Modica v. State (1923)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 413Akers v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 414Walker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 423Rochetszky v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 427Smith v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 429Ramsey v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 431Zacack v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 433Holdman v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 436Cadena v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 436Cardena v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 443Ex Parte Ross v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 444Stubblefield v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 446Connelly v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 449Reich v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 451De Gamboa v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 453Flores v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 456Simpkins v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 459Mangan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 461Huebsch v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 467Fuston v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 470Modest v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 471Jones v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 478Smith v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 480Hubbard v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 486Page v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 489Moore v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 495Phillips v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 498Hays v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 503Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 505Tucker v. State (1923)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 508Miller v. State (1923)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 513Samples v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 514Eads v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 517Pinson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 524Pybus v. State (1923)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 529Benson v. State (1923)
Opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 532Mason v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 533Burns v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 535Gandara v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 537Apodaca v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 538Gothard v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 539McCleskey v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 541Garrison v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 542Adams v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 546Moore v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 549Howington v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 554Thompson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 556Garrett v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 560Lamm v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 563Howell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 566Lyons v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 567Walker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 568Walker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 571Nowells v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 572Mince v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 576Rains v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 583Ex Parte Edwin Burkhart (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 586Finch v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 591Embrey v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 594Wright v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 596Willingham v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 599Cathey v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 601Huntsman v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 602Baker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 602Harris v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 604Massey v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 606Sanchez v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 608Meador v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 614Ex Parte Charles Beland (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 616Richardson v. State (1923)
1. —Murder—Acts of Third Parties — Practice on Appeal. Where, upon trial of murder, complaint was made of the refusal of defendant’s request that the jury be retired' while the aged mother of defendant and deceased, a witness for the State, was being assisted to and from the -witness stand during the trial of the case, held, that there was no reversible error in the instant case in the absence of an affirmative showing of injury, or a flagrant abuse of discretion of the lower court. 2. —Same—Evidence—Reputation of Deceased. Where defendant objected to the proof of the good reputation of deceased on the ground that it was immaterial, irrelevant and prejudicial, and that deceased had been away on a prolonged absence until a few months prior to the homicide, and that the witnesses could not therefore have formed an opinion provable in court, and that beside there was no proof of communication of threats to the defendant, which bill of exception was qualified by the court, held that there was no reversible error. 3. —Same—Reputation of Deceased — Communicated Threats — Rule Stated. The statute makes no distinction in the rule laid down authorizing the introduction of proof of deceased’s reputation, between threats communicated or uncommunicated, nor would there seem to be any reason why, as to communicated threats, a different rule should obtain between cases where the threats were communicated to a defendant and believed by him, in a case where they were made to him by the deceased in person. Following Jirou v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 18 and other cases. Qualifying Arnwine v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 254. 4. —Same—Charge of Court — Deadly Weapon — Presumption. Where, upon trial of murder, the court instructed the jury that if they found and believed from the evidence that at the time the defendant shot and killed the deceased, if he did, that the decease had a pistol in his hand, under circumstances which reasonably indicated an intention to murder or to inflict serious bodily injury upon him, then the law presumed and the jury should presume that the deceased intended to murder or to inflict serious bodily injury upon the defendant, there was no reversible error. Following Kendall v. State, 8 Texas. Crim. Rep., 569. 5. —Same—Charge of Court — Function of Jury — Rule Stated. Where, upon trial of murder, the court instructed the jury that they are the exclusive judges of the facts and the weight of the testimony, the contention that in the .instant case, and where the law of Article 1106, P. C. may be demanded, the charge ought to instruct the jury that where the law creates certain presumptions arising from facts, the jury are not the exclusive judges of the facts, is untenable. 6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence. Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, the evidence sustained the same, there is no reversible error. 7. —Same—Rehearing—Reputation of Deceased — Communicated Threats. Where defendant admitted the homicide, and endeavored to excuse it upon the ground of self-defense by introducing evidence of an attack or an apparent attack upon him by deceased at the time deceased was killed, and that prior thereto he had made threats to kill or do injury to the person of the defendant, it was competent for the State to meet such testimony by evidence of the reputation of deceased for peace, etc. 8. —Same—Communicated Threats — Statutes Construed. The first paragraph of the statute doubtless is restricted to communicated threats, the other subdivision, however, is general in its scope and appears unrestricted in the statement that in every case where proof of threats has been made, it shall be competent to' introduce evidence of the general character of the deceased, and includes uncommunicated threats. 9. —Same—Question to Witness — General Reputation of Deceased. The question to the witness as to the general reputation for peace and quietude of the deceased was framed in language often found approved in the reports, and there was no error. 10. —Same—General Reputation — General Character. Where it is contended that the words “general character” are distinguished from and do not mean the same as “general reputation,” held that these terms should not be given such limited meaning. ■ 11. — Same—Charge of Court — Deadly Weapon. Where the charge of the court submitting the law touching the use of a deadly weapon was critized in that it contained the words “under circumstances which reasonably indicated an intention to murder or inflict serious bodily injury upon him” as an undue restriction upon the right of the jury to apply the legal presumption intended by Article 1106, P. C., held that inasmuch as the court told the jury to acquit if, from the words or acts of the deceased, etc., it reasonably appeared to defendant that he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm. (Following Gunn v. State— recently decided). There was no reversible error under Article 743, C. C. P.
94 Tex. Crim. 626Paschall v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 630Lott v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 630Pierce v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 633Smith v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 636Adams v. State (1923)
94 Tex. Crim. 637Green v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 640Howard v. State (1923)
The opinion states' the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 642Hardeman v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 645Preston v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 646Allen v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 650Bird v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
94 Tex. Crim. 653Walker v. State (1923)