Harper v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Harper v. State

98 S.W.2d 191, 131 Tex. Crim. 286, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 536

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harper v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 Tex. Crim. 255 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided November 12, 1936·No. No. 18512·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for perjury, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

It was alleged in the indictment in substance that appellant had been theretofore charged with removing from Denton County certain described property upon which he had given a valid mortgage, and that upon the trial for said offense appellant had filed application for a suspended sentence, and had gone upon the witness stand and testified that he had never theretofore been convicted of a felony. It was further alleged that appellant’s testimony was false and that in fact he had been theretofore convicted in Cooke County of the crime of burglary.

Every material averment in the indictment — which if true rendered appellant guilty of perjury — was supported by the State’s evidence. We see no necessity of setting out same in [287]*287detail. There are no bills of exception in the record. The indictment was in proper form.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for perjury, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

It was alleged in the indictment in substance that appellant had been theretofore charged with removing from Denton County certain described property upon which he had given a valid mortgage, and that upon the trial for said offense appellant had filed application for a suspended sentence, and had gone upon the witness stand and testified that he had never theretofore been convicted of a felony. It was further alleged that appellant’s testimony was false and that in fact he had been theretofore convicted in Cooke County of the crime of burglary.

Every material averment in the indictment — which if true rendered appellant guilty of perjury — was supported by the State’s evidence. We see no necessity of setting out same in [287]*287detail. There are no bills of exception in the record. The indictment was in proper form.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Harper v. State, 98 S.W.2d 191, 131 Tex. Crim. 286, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 536 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

98 S.W.2d 191 (Harper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.