Casey v. State
This text of 265 S.W. 150 (Casey 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.
Opinions
— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Williamson County of possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
The evidence supports the verdict. A State witness went to appellant and asked him if he had any whisky, to which he replied, “Lot’s of it.” He then took witness to a near-by place and showed him a quantity of whisky which he tried to sell witness at a certain price per gallon.
The State witness was asked on cross-examination by appellant if he had not been convicted of theft and admitted that when a boy he had been so charged and had pleaded guilty. The State thereafter placed oni the stand three witnesses who testified to the good reputation of said witness for truth and veracity. This was proper. Coombes v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 264; Farmer v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 270; Luttrell v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 659.
There are two other bills of exception in the record neither of *184 which raises any point deemed tenable by us, or a discussion of which would be of any advantage.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
265 S.W. 150, 98 Tex. Crim. 183, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-state-texcrimapp-1924.