Martinez v. State
This text of 253 S.W.2d 1001 (Martinez 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
The facts show that appellant obtained from a registered pharmacist a narcotic drug, by a forged prescription and under a false name.
Such facts constituted a violation of Sec. 20 of Art. 725b, Vernon’s P. C., known as the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.
Punishment was assessed at the maximum of ten years in the penitentiary.
Bills of Exception Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 complain of the overruling of appellant’s objection to the asking of certain questions. The questions so asked were not answered by the witness. There [166]*166was nothing inherently wrong in the mere asking of the questions. Obviously, such bills of exception fail to present anything for review.
The argument complained of violated no mandatory rule or statute. The bills of exception are fatally defective in failing to negative the fact that the argument complained of was not invited by argument of appellant’s counsel.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
253 S.W.2d 1001, 158 Tex. Crim. 165, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-texcrimapp-1953.