Kirkpatrick v. State
This text of 226 S.W. 1078 (Kirkpatrick 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.
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of exhibiting a moving picture show on Sunday in violation of Article 302 P. C.
*301 The questions presented for revision are very interesting, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to be sustained, but the majority of the court have held otherwise on each question. They have been thoroughly discussed by the court as it was constituted at the time the opinion in Ex parte Lingenfelder, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 30, was written, and again in Zucarro v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 1, after the personnel of the court had been changed. Again the questions were reviewed at this term of the court in Hegman v. State, just decided. The writer differed with the majority of the court on those questions, but his views have not obtained.
In obedience to those cases this judgment must be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered. • • -
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 S.W. 1078, 88 Tex. Crim. 300, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkpatrick-v-state-texcrimapp-1920.