Goldstein v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Goldstein v. State

136 S.W. 60, 61 Tex. Crim. 662, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 29, 1911

DocketNo. 1088.

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.W. 60 (Goldstein 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

Goldstein v. State, 136 S.W. 60, 61 Tex. Crim. 662, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180 (Tex. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

—Appellant was charged upon information and complaint with the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and upon conviction his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and thirty days imprisonment in the county jail.

The only assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. The State proved that a pistol was taken off of defendant. The defendant offered an explanation which, if true, entitled him to an acquittal. The State introduced a witness to prove the falsity of the explanation. The jury heard the defendant’s explanation of his possession of the pistol, and the State’s testimony. They evidently did not believe the witnesses for defendant, but did believe the State’s theory. Under these circumstances we will not disturb the jury’s findings.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HARPER, Judge.

—Appellant was charged upon information and complaint with the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and upon conviction his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and thirty days imprisonment in the county jail.

The only assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. The State proved that a pistol was taken off of defendant. The defendant offered an explanation which, if true, entitled him to an acquittal. The State introduced a witness to prove the falsity of the explanation. The jury heard the defendant’s explanation of his possession of the pistol, and the State’s testimony. They evidently did not believe the witnesses for defendant, but did believe the State’s theory. Under these circumstances we will not disturb the jury’s findings.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.W. 60, 61 Tex. Crim. 662, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-state-texcrimapp-1911.