Dinklage v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Dinklage v. State

198 S.W.2d 578, 150 Tex. Crim. 12, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 920

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 20, 1946

DocketNo. 23461.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 198 S.W.2d 578 (Dinklage 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

Dinklage v. State, 198 S.W.2d 578, 150 Tex. Crim. 12, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 920 (Tex. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of nine years in the penitentiary on a charge of murder.

This is the second appeal (see Dinklage v. State, 185 S. W. *13 (2d) 573). On the former conviction appellant was given a sentence of twenty-five years in the penitentiary. The facts of the case are practically the same and reference is here made to the former opinion for a statement of the case.

We are presented with three bills of exception, each complaining of the argument and manner of argument by the district attorney. Each bill, carefully drawn, refers to the record and negatives the fact that there is support found in the statement of facts for the argument, as set out in the bills. We note, however, that neither bill negatives the existence of any argument made by counsel for the defense which might have provoked or invited the argument by the district attorney. It has been consistently held by this court that such bills are deficient unless they negative .the existence of all things which would have authorized the argument complained of. See Richardson v. State, 270 S. W. 854; Winslow v. State, 98 S. W. 866; Gonzales v. State, 226 S. W. 405; Fowler v. State, 232 S. W. 515; Clowers v. State, 171 S. W. (2d) 143; Fuller v. State, 180 S. W. (2d) 361; Sanchez v. State, 181 S. W. (2d) 87; Taylor v. State, 184 S. W. (2d) 621; and France v. State, 187 S. W. (2d) 80.

An examination of' the record fails to reflect any reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of nine years in the penitentiary on a charge of murder.

This is the second appeal (see Dinklage v. State, 185 S. W. *13 (2d) 573). On the former conviction appellant was given a sentence of twenty-five years in the penitentiary. The facts of the case are practically the same and reference is here made to the former opinion for a statement of the case.

We are presented with three bills of exception, each complaining of the argument and manner of argument by the district attorney. Each bill, carefully drawn, refers to the record and negatives the fact that there is support found in the statement of facts for the argument, as set out in the bills. We note, however, that neither bill negatives the existence of any argument made by counsel for the defense which might have provoked or invited the argument by the district attorney. It has been consistently held by this court that such bills are deficient unless they negative .the existence of all things which would have authorized the argument complained of. See Richardson v. State, 270 S. W. 854; Winslow v. State, 98 S. W. 866; Gonzales v. State, 226 S. W. 405; Fowler v. State, 232 S. W. 515; Clowers v. State, 171 S. W. (2d) 143; Fuller v. State, 180 S. W. (2d) 361; Sanchez v. State, 181 S. W. (2d) 87; Taylor v. State, 184 S. W. (2d) 621; and France v. State, 187 S. W. (2d) 80.

An examination of' the record fails to reflect any reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.W.2d 578, 150 Tex. Crim. 12, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinklage-v-state-texcrimapp-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack