Lawrence v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Lawrence v. State

91 S.W.2d 350, 130 Tex. Crim. 25, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

DocketNo. 17827.

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.W.2d 350 (Lawrence 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

Lawrence v. State, 91 S.W.2d 350, 130 Tex. Crim. 25, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Mann Mimms by shooting him with a gun.

The homicide occurred on the 19th of June, 1933, at a negro celebration. According to the testimony of the State, appellant and George Syphret each shot deceased, appellant using a pistol and Syphret, a shotgun. The State’s testimony was to the effect that deceased was making no demonstration at the time he was shot and that he was unarmed. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced witnesses who testified that deceased was attacking appellant at the time the fatal shots were fired.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Mann Mimms by shooting him with a gun.

The homicide occurred on the 19th of June, 1933, at a negro celebration. According to the testimony of the State, appellant and George Syphret each shot deceased, appellant using a pistol and Syphret, a shotgun. The State’s testimony was to the effect that deceased was making no demonstration at the time he was shot and that he was unarmed. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced witnesses who testified that deceased was attacking appellant at the time the fatal shots were fired.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.2d 350, 130 Tex. Crim. 25, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-state-texcrimapp-1936.