Fincher v. State
This text of 95 S.W.2d 131 (Fincher 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.
Opinion
Theft is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The evidence is sufficient to show the theft by appellant of two slot machines together with certain money that was in them at the time.
It is the contention of the appellant that since a slot machine is a gambling device, his conviction could not be sustained under the statute denouncing theft. The exact question was before this court in Bryant v. State, 87 S. W. (2d) 722, and Smitham v. State, 87 S. W. (2d) 724, in which cases it was held that a slot machine, although it could not legally be possessed, was a subject of robbery. Therefore, the appellant’s - contention in the present instance must be held untenable.
Deeming the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.W.2d 131, 130 Tex. Crim. 470, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fincher-v-state-texcrimapp-1936.