95 Tex. Crim.

Volume 95 — Texas Criminal Reports

176 opinions

95 Tex. Crim. 1Buckhannan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 3Hinton v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 4Stegall v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 8Holcomb v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 9Galloway v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 14Brent v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 20Fields v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 28Reeves v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 36Yarbrough v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 42Whitten v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 46Churchwell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 49Hustead v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 53McClure v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 62Forrester v. State (1923)
Tried helow before the Honorable W. R. Ely. Appeal from a conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. - The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 65Hughes v. State (1923)
Appeal from the District Court of Young. Tried below before the Honorable P. A. Martin. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
95 Tex. Crim. 70Bennett v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 82Scott v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 88Claybrook v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 90Wade v. State (1922)
1. —Murder—Evidence—Cross-Examination—Husband and Wife. Where appellant complained that while his wife was on the witness stand she was asked by the State with reference to a shot-gun which defendant had carried with him, to which he objected, because not inquired about upon her examination in chief, and the complaint is not of anything elicited from the wife nor of any question asked her, but is directed at the remark of the private prosecutor when cautioned by the court, and the court at once instructed the jury not to consider the remark of counsel, there is no reversible error.- 2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence. Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence sustained the conviction thereof, there is no reversible error. 3. —Same—Rehearing-—Side-Bar Remarks — Practice in Trial Court. WTiere the discussion was between counsel for the State and the defendant with reference to the cross-examination of defendant’s wife, and State’s counsel’s remarks with reference thereto, to which defendant’s counsel objected, whereupon the court told the jury to pay no attention to sidebar remarks of counsel of either side, there was no reversible error.
95 Tex. Crim. 93King v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 102Wimberley v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 107Armstrong v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 111Mitchell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 113Chappel v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 113Chappell v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 116Blackmon v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 124Leon v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 126Nixon v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 129Thomas v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 130Moore v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 133Thomas v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 135Wortham v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 138Kelly v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 143Tinker v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 155Aven v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 164Sims v. State (1922)
95 Tex. Crim. 173Hickox v. State (1923)
Tbe opinion states tbe case.
95 Tex. Crim. 189Stovall v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 198Bennett v. State (1923)
1. — Swindling—Indictment—Precedent. Where, upon trial óf swindling, the indictment followed approved precedent, there is no error in overruling the motion to quash. Following Fairy v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 397. 2. — Same—Copy of Indictment — Constitutional Law.. It has often been held that by virtue of Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution, one is entitled to a copy of tbe charge against him, and where defendant was on bail he was nevertheless entitled to such copy, and it did not relieve the court of the duty to furnish him with such when demanded before trial, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
95 Tex. Crim. 200Ex Parte Jackson (1923)
Prom 'Williamson County. Original Habeas Corpus proceeding, asking release from jail under an order of the District Court punishing witness for contempt for not answering questions before the grand jury, which has since adjourned. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 205Tipton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 207Parks v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable John Lee Smith. Appeal from a conviction of assault; penalty, a fine of $15.00. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 209Britton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 212Ferguson v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 219Victory v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 219Victory v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 220Fox v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 226Adams v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson. Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 237Wolf Jr. v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 250Ex Parte J.W. Strong (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 256Keller v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 261Newton v. State (1921)
1. — Selling Intoxicating liquor — Accomplice—Purchaser. Where, upon trial of selling intoxicating liquor under the former law which made the purchaser an accomplice, the court refused to submit a charge on accomplice testimony of a State’s witness who, while he took no part in the sale, other than his connection with the purchase, but his testimony was essential to conviction, same was reversible error. 2. — Same—Rule Stated — Accomplice. The word accomplice as used in Article 801 P. C., is not used in the technical sense, but includes those who are criminally connected with the crime on trial. Following Irvin v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 303.
95 Tex. Crim. 261Oliver v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 267Ex Parte Ed Walker (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 269Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 276Gunn v. State (1922)
Tried below before the Honorable M. B. Blair. Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, ninety-nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 303Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 304Milam v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 306Copello v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 307Mitchell v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 307Mitchell v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 308Davis v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 309Salinas v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 311Benson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 315Elliott v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 323Rezeau v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 334Ayres v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 336Emery v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 340Parker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 341Elson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 343Brown v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 346Anderson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 354Williams v. State (1922)
95 Tex. Crim. 360Ordell v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 368Gaines v. State (1922)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 379Caskey Ray v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 384Banks v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 384Savanah Bank v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 390Newsom v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 393Vitrano v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 394Hunter v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 398De Beauford v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 398Debeauford v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 401Martin v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 405Collins v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 412Prescott v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Davis. Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 413Denmark v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 415Kilker v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 417Austin v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 422Bennett v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 429Maddox v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 437Grant v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 439Madsen v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 443Mahaney v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 450Ex Parte Jeff Hicks (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 452Fuller v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 457Lamb v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 459Mills v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable Chas. L. Brachfield. Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 460Huntsman v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 462Kulberth v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable J. M. Blackmon. Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 464Gillam v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 465Forbes v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 467Stubblefield v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Bishop. Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 469Manley v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 472Williford v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 474Horak v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 476Fuller v. State (1923)
Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Companion Case — Permit. The law does not penalize the transportation of liquor without a permit, and whether such transportation was bonarfide for medicinal purposes or not was a question of fact, and could be contested by the State; but the court cannot refuse to submit the issue to the jury, this being the rule announced in a companion case, the judgment must be reversed and remanded. Following Mayo v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 624.
95 Tex. Crim. 477Atchley v. State (1923)
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable George L. Davenport. Appeal from a conviction of theft of an automobile; penalty three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 479Boortz v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 483Johnson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 488Embry v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 490Bradford v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 491Retza v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 492Reed v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 495Ex Parte Hennington (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 497Alexander v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 500Hill v. State (1923)
The opinions states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 502Latson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 502Gould v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 502Gould v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 508Bethune v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 511Ratliff v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 513Harrison v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 515Freeman v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 519Isanbaugh v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 521Brewer v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 525Eiland v. State (1922)
1. —Seduction—Allusion to Defendant’s Faiure to Testify. • Where, upon trial of seduction, the attorney for the State, during the closing argument, placed defendant’s photograph, which was in evidence, upon a desk in front of the jury, and ostensibly addressing the picture, said: “Oh, Roby, why did you seduce this poor little girl,” etc., ’’why ain’t you man enough to give the jury all the facts,” etc., defendant not testifying, same was reversible error, as the inhibition of the statute is* positive and the effect of its violation the same, whether the comment be direct or by subterfuge. 2. —Same—Misconduct of Jury. Where the foreman of the jury, each time when the fact was referred to as to defendant’s failure to testify, admonished them that they were forbidden to discuss this matter, and as presented the court would hesitate to> reverse for this alone, yet it tends to show that the improper argument of; State’s counsel had found lodgment in the jury’s mind, etc. 3. —Same—Evidence—Shirking Military Duty. Counsel for the State should not have been permitted to prove the condition of defendant’s health, intimating in the presence of the jury, that he was shirking military duty, and again alluded to it in his argument. [This case reached the hands of the reporter in October, 1923. Reporter.]
95 Tex. Crim. 527Sullivan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 530Heard v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 533Nunley v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 534Woodard v. State (1923)
Tried below before the Honorable W. It. Chapman. Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary. The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 539Riley v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 541Yantis v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 548Neal v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 549Mayabb v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 550Hays v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 553Cooke v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 555Rayburn v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 558Strong v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 560Hill v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 562Bookout v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 564Rush v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 566Hart v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 568Brown v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 571Lovelady v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 574Jones v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 574Ex parte Page (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 581Smith v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 583Howell v. State (1923)
The ODinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 585Hill v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 588Griffin v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 591Combs v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 593Turner v. State (1923)
Tbe opinion states tbe case.
95 Tex. Crim. 596Houseton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 599Bostick v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 601Tabb v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 604Shaw v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 607Stockton v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 607Sims v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 607Stockton v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 609Anderson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 611Stroll v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 615Combs v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 620Wilson v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 625Pospishel v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 629Briggs v. State (1923)
The appellant states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 636Gates v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 638Davidson v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 641Redding v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 645Cadan v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 649Daniels v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 649Daniel v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 654Lee v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.
95 Tex. Crim. 657Colter v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 660Berry v. State (1923)
95 Tex. Crim. 664Brown v. State (1923)
The opinion states the case.