Cutbirth v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cutbirth v. State

183 S.W. 141, 79 Tex. Crim. 85, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 70

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cutbirth v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 76 Tex. Crim. 325 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 16, 1916·No. No. 3937.·Published

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

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

This is a companion case to Beed v. State, this day decided, in an opinion by Judge Harper, cause No. 3938. The questions are, it may be stated, the same in both cases, except perhaps one question in the Beed case not in this case. Inasmuch as the Beed case has been affirmed it would serve no practical purpose to write an extended opinion in this case. Hpon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

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

This is a companion case to Beed v. State, this day decided, in an opinion by Judge Harper, cause No. 3938. The questions are, it may be stated, the same in both cases, except perhaps one question in the Beed case not in this case. Inasmuch as the Beed case has been affirmed it would serve no practical purpose to write an extended opinion in this case. Hpon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cutbirth v. State, 183 S.W. 141, 79 Tex. Crim. 85, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 70 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

183 S.W. 141 (Cutbirth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.