Cutbirth v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cutbirth v. State

183 S.W. 1198

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 16, 1916

DocketNo. 3937

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.W. 1198 (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, 183 S.W. 1198 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of

perjury; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary. This is a companion case to Reed v. State, 183 S. W. 1168, 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 Reed Case not in this case. Inasmuch as the Reed Case has been affirmed, it would serve no practical purpose to write an extended opinion in this case. Upon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of

perjury; his punishment being assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary. This is a companion case to Reed v. State, 183 S. W. 1168, 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 Reed Case not in this case. Inasmuch as the Reed Case has been affirmed, it would serve no practical purpose to write an extended opinion in this case. Upon the authority of that case the judgment herein will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.W. 1198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutbirth-v-state-texcrimapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack