Armstrong v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Armstrong v. State

42 S.W.2d 1023, 118 Tex. Crim. 622, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 802

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 28, 1931

DocketNo. 14705

StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.W.2d 1023 (Armstrong 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

Armstrong v. State, 42 S.W.2d 1023, 118 Tex. Crim. 622, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 802 (Tex. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

CALHOUN, Judge.

Conviction is for the theft of an automobile over the value of $50; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

There is no statement of facts in this case. Several exceptions were taken to the charge of the court. We have examined said charge and no fundamental error is found therein. In view of the charge as given, we cannot say that it was not applicable to a state of facts that might be made by the evidence under the allegation of the indictment, and therefore in the absence of a statement of facts, the charge must be held sufficient. Henderson v. State, 20 Texas App., 304; Wallace v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 200 S. W., 1088; Bryant v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 394; Wilkerson v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 45 S. W., 805; Williams v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 590, 150 S. W., 185.

Appellant reserves a bill of exception to remarks of the district attorney in his closing address to the jury, wherein he is alleged to have used the following language: ‘Has this defendant proven by any witness that he ever paid one dollar for this automobile which he claims to have purchased ?”

The court qualified said bill to the effect that he heard what the district attorney said in his closing argument and that there was nothing said by him which could be construed as referring to defendant’s failure’ to testify, nor did said district attorney make the statement as contained in the bill of exception, but on the contrary what was said by the district attorney was invited by and made in direct answer to the argument of counsel for defendant. There is no exception to said qualification. As. qualified, no error is shown. Smith v. State, 21 Texas App., 277, 17 S. W., 471; Chalk v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 116, 32 S. W., 534; Moore v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 453, 144 S. W., 598; Campbell v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 561, 138 S. W., 607.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[624]*624The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

CALHOUN, Judge.

Conviction is for the theft of an automobile over the value of $50; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

There is no statement of facts in this case. Several exceptions were taken to the charge of the court. We have examined said charge and no fundamental error is found therein. In view of the charge as given, we cannot say that it was not applicable to a state of facts that might be made by the evidence under the allegation of the indictment, and therefore in the absence of a statement of facts, the charge must be held sufficient. Henderson v. State, 20 Texas App., 304; Wallace v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 200 S. W., 1088; Bryant v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 394; Wilkerson v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 45 S. W., 805; Williams v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 590, 150 S. W., 185.

Appellant reserves a bill of exception to remarks of the district attorney in his closing address to the jury, wherein he is alleged to have used the following language: ‘Has this defendant proven by any witness that he ever paid one dollar for this automobile which he claims to have purchased ?”

The court qualified said bill to the effect that he heard what the district attorney said in his closing argument and that there was nothing said by him which could be construed as referring to defendant’s failure’ to testify, nor did said district attorney make the statement as contained in the bill of exception, but on the contrary what was said by the district attorney was invited by and made in direct answer to the argument of counsel for defendant. There is no exception to said qualification. As. qualified, no error is shown. Smith v. State, 21 Texas App., 277, 17 S. W., 471; Chalk v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 116, 32 S. W., 534; Moore v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 453, 144 S. W., 598; Campbell v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 561, 138 S. W., 607.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[624]*624The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.W.2d 1023, 118 Tex. Crim. 622, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-texcrimapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack