Alexander v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Alexander v. State

146 S.W. 201, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 696

DecidedMarch 20, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.W. 201 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. State, 146 S.W. 201, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 696 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of hogs; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception. The only criticism of the conviction contained in the motion for new trial is the want of sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court. We deem it unnecessary to review the statement of facts. We are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient, and that the jury did not err in finding appellant guilty under the evidence adduced.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of hogs; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception. The only criticism of the conviction contained in the motion for new trial is the want of sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court. We deem it unnecessary to review the statement of facts. We are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient, and that the jury did not err in finding appellant guilty under the evidence adduced.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.W. 201, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.