Cutbirth v. State

174 S.W. 1066, 76 Tex. Crim. 325, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 379
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 17, 1915
DocketNo. 3424.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 S.W. 1066 (Cutbirth 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
Cutbirth v. State, 174 S.W. 1066, 76 Tex. Crim. 325, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 379 (Tex. 1915).

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for perjury. It is a companion case to that of Pleas Reed this day decided in an opinion by Judge Harper.

There was no evidence introduced in this case after the argument and charge as to the place where either the District or County Court was held, like there was in the Reed case. With that exception there is no material difference in the eases. Outside of that one question the same questions were raised in this which were raised in that.

It is necessary to reverse this case for the same error that the Reed case was reversed for. With that exception no error was committed in the trial of this case on any of the grounds complained of by appellant. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Reed v. State
183 S.W. 1168 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 S.W. 1066, 76 Tex. Crim. 325, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutbirth-v-state-texcrimapp-1915.