Joyce v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Joyce v. State

158 S.W. 1198, 71 Tex. Crim. 75, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 18, 1913

DocketNo. 2545.

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.W. 1198 (Joyce 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

Joyce v. State, 158 S.W. 1198, 71 Tex. Crim. 75, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for the theft of divers and sundry pistols amounting in value to $190 as charged.

Three grounds of the motion for new trial complain that Westmoreland was not corroborated by legal and competent evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the offense, was not sufficiently corroborated as required by law, and because the court erred in defining the law of accomplices. The evidence is not before us, and there are no bills of exception in the record. The charge on accomplice testimony seems to be sufficient. The allegations criticising the charge are of the most general nature and point out no defect. However, the charge seems to be in conformity with the decisions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for the theft of divers and sundry pistols amounting in value to $190 as charged.

Three grounds of the motion for new trial complain that Westmoreland was not corroborated by legal and competent evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the offense, was not sufficiently corroborated as required by law, and because the court erred in defining the law of accomplices. The evidence is not before us, and there are no bills of exception in the record. The charge on accomplice testimony seems to be sufficient. The allegations criticising the charge are of the most general nature and point out no defect. However, the charge seems to be in conformity with the decisions.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.W. 1198, 71 Tex. Crim. 75, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.