Koblenschlag v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Koblenschlag v. State

4 S.W. 888, 23 Tex. Ct. App. 264, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 13, 1887

DocketNo. 5133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 S.W. 888 (Koblenschlag v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Koblenschlag v. State, 4 S.W. 888, 23 Tex. Ct. App. 264, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62 (Tex. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Hurt, Judge.

This was a conviction for selling liquor to a minor. Upon the trial the State’s counsel propounded to the witness the following question: “From physical appearance in last August, was W. C. Strong a minor, or did he appear to be so to a man of ordinary observation?” To which the witness answered: “At that time a person of ordinary observation and intellect would have taken him to be a minor, from his physical appearance.” Counsel for appellant objected to both the question and the answer. Both were improper, and in permitting both or either there was error. The age, appearance, etc., of the minor might very properly be shown; but it is not permissible for the witness to give his opinion as to how others would be impressed by these physical marks of age. It was the province of the jury to determine whether from these the defendant knew that the party was in fact a minor.

[265]*265Opinion delivered April 13, 1887.

For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Hurt, Judge.

This was a conviction for selling liquor to a minor. Upon the trial the State’s counsel propounded to the witness the following question: “From physical appearance in last August, was W. C. Strong a minor, or did he appear to be so to a man of ordinary observation?” To which the witness answered: “At that time a person of ordinary observation and intellect would have taken him to be a minor, from his physical appearance.” Counsel for appellant objected to both the question and the answer. Both were improper, and in permitting both or either there was error. The age, appearance, etc., of the minor might very properly be shown; but it is not permissible for the witness to give his opinion as to how others would be impressed by these physical marks of age. It was the province of the jury to determine whether from these the defendant knew that the party was in fact a minor.

[265]*265Opinion delivered April 13, 1887.

For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.W. 888, 23 Tex. Ct. App. 264, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koblenschlag-v-state-texapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack