King v. State

78 S.W.2d 632, 127 Tex. Crim. 566, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 35
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 23, 1935
DocketNo. 17178
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 S.W.2d 632 (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, 78 S.W.2d 632, 127 Tex. Crim. 566, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Tex. 1935).

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to rob; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is devoid of any bills of exception. The facts are in a condition of conflict. The State’s testimony, if believed by the jury, unquestionably made out a case of assault with intent to rob. The testimony for the appellant amounted to a denial of the State’s case, and an effort to prove an alibi. The reconciliation of conflicts in testimony is a matter for the jury. The testimony of the State witnesses, if true, made out a complete case. The use of the word “attempt” in the indictment instead of the word “intent” does not vitiate same. Atkinson v. State, 30 S. W., 1064; Runnels, v. State, 30 S. W., 1065.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ex Parte Bailey
600 S.W.2d 331 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
McCutcheon v. State
363 S.W.2d 457 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 S.W.2d 632, 127 Tex. Crim. 566, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-texcrimapp-1935.