Coleman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Coleman v. State

200 S.W. 1087, 83 Tex. Crim. 86, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 6, 1918

DocketNo. 4885.

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.W. 1087 (Coleman 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

Coleman v. State, 200 S.W. 1087, 83 Tex. Crim. 86, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92 (Tex. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, nor were any exceptions reserved to the charge. The charge is criticised, however, in the motion for new trial, but nothing is presented of such a nature as could bring in review the court’s action. There is no error fundamental in its character mentioned. It is contended that the evidence is not sufficient. The State’s case places appellant in such relation 'to the burglary that the jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that he assisted in the burglary, and if he did not enter the house, was present aiding and encouraging those who went in. He took the stand and testified in his own behalf. Even under his testimony we think the facts are sufficient to show that he was a principal.

The judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, nor were any exceptions reserved to the charge. The charge is criticised, however, in the motion for new trial, but nothing is presented of such a nature as could bring in review the court’s action. There is no error fundamental in its character mentioned. It is contended that the evidence is not sufficient. The State’s case places appellant in such relation 'to the burglary that the jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that he assisted in the burglary, and if he did not enter the house, was present aiding and encouraging those who went in. He took the stand and testified in his own behalf. Even under his testimony we think the facts are sufficient to show that he was a principal.

The judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.W. 1087, 83 Tex. Crim. 86, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-texcrimapp-1918.