Kramer v. State

29 S.W. 157, 34 Tex. Crim. 84, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 19, 1895·No. No. 647.·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

DAVTDSOF, Judge.

Convicted of exhibiting a faro banking game, the appellant prosecutes this appeal.

There are four bills of exception reserved to the action of the court overruling the challenges for cause to certain jurors, as well as to ruling of the court in regard to certain form or phraseology of the questions propounded to one or more of said jurors.

It is not shown that either of the jurors sat on the jury that tried the cause. It should have been shown that appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges, and that thereafter an objectionable juror was *85 forced upon him. This was not shown by the bill of exception. Will-son’s Crim. Proc., sec. 2293.

The evidence fully supports the conviction, and there is no reason made to appear why this conviction should be set aside, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

Kramer v. State, 29 S.W. 157, 34 Tex. Crim. 84, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12 (Tex. 1895).

29 S.W. 157 (Kramer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earls v. State
707 S.W.2d 82 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Johnson v. State
205 S.W.2d 773 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Pruett, Jr. v. State
24 S.W.2d 41 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Cook v. State
228 S.W. 213 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Bartlett v. State
200 S.W. 839 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
James v. State
167 S.W. 727 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Harris v. State
148 S.W. 1074 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Walters v. State
118 S.W. 543 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1909)