King v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

King v. State

46 S.W.2d 1114

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1932

DocketNo. 14935

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.W.2d 1114 (King 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

King v. State, 46 S.W.2d 1114 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for negligent homicide of the second degree; punishment, two years’ imprisonment in the county jail.

There are no bills of exception in the record. We see no good to come from stating the testimony at length. That of the state shows that, while operating his cpr at a speed of approximately fifty miles an hour upon the Dallas-Oak Cliff viaduct, Dallas, Tex., appellant collided with another car in which weré deceased and two others, thereby causing the death of deceased. Appellant took the stand and testified that he was not going more than, twenty or twenty-five miles an hour, and that the collision was caused by the carelessness of the driver of the car occupied by deceased. These questions of fact have been decided adversely to appellant. We find nothing leading us to conclude that there should be a reversal.

' The judgment will be affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for negligent homicide of the second degree; punishment, two years’ imprisonment in the county jail.

There are no bills of exception in the record. We see no good to come from stating the testimony at length. That of the state shows that, while operating his cpr at a speed of approximately fifty miles an hour upon the Dallas-Oak Cliff viaduct, Dallas, Tex., appellant collided with another car in which weré deceased and two others, thereby causing the death of deceased. Appellant took the stand and testified that he was not going more than, twenty or twenty-five miles an hour, and that the collision was caused by the carelessness of the driver of the car occupied by deceased. These questions of fact have been decided adversely to appellant. We find nothing leading us to conclude that there should be a reversal.

' The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.W.2d 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-texcrimapp-1932.