Murphy v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Murphy v. State

26 S.W. 395, 33 Tex. Crim. 314, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 5, 1894

DocketNo. 443.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 S.W. 395 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. State, 26 S.W. 395, 33 Tex. Crim. 314, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100 (Tex. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

*315 SIMKINS, Judge.

This is a conviction for perjury committed in an examining court in which appellant was charged with theft of cattle, and his punishment assessed at six years, from which he appeals.

1. Appellant claims that this cause should be reversed, because the court overruled his motion for a continuance in cause number 2809, in which appellant was tried and convicted of theft of cattle, because appellant was forced to trial without his witnesses, and his conviction prejudiced his rights in this case. We are unable to see the relevancy of this objection. There is no complaint in the case at bar that appellant did not have fall time for preparing his defense.

2. Appellant further contends, that he was an ex-convict at the time he made the statement in the examining court upon which the perjury is assigned,* that at the time he so testified he had been convicted of a felony, to wit, an assault with intent to murder, and had served a term in the penitentiary, and was disqualified from testifying, and therefore could not commit the crime of perjury. There is nothing in this contention. In the first place, it does not appear from the evidence or any bill of exceptions that the defendant was an ex-convict; yet, conceding it to be true, he had the right to testify in his own behalf, and, if he swore falsely, could be indicted and convicted therefor. Williams’ case, 28 Texas Crim. App., 302; Shannon’s case, 28 Texas Crim. App., 474.

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

*315 SIMKINS, Judge.

This is a conviction for perjury committed in an examining court in which appellant was charged with theft of cattle, and his punishment assessed at six years, from which he appeals.

1. Appellant claims that this cause should be reversed, because the court overruled his motion for a continuance in cause number 2809, in which appellant was tried and convicted of theft of cattle, because appellant was forced to trial without his witnesses, and his conviction prejudiced his rights in this case. We are unable to see the relevancy of this objection. There is no complaint in the case at bar that appellant did not have fall time for preparing his defense.

2. Appellant further contends, that he was an ex-convict at the time he made the statement in the examining court upon which the perjury is assigned,* that at the time he so testified he had been convicted of a felony, to wit, an assault with intent to murder, and had served a term in the penitentiary, and was disqualified from testifying, and therefore could not commit the crime of perjury. There is nothing in this contention. In the first place, it does not appear from the evidence or any bill of exceptions that the defendant was an ex-convict; yet, conceding it to be true, he had the right to testify in his own behalf, and, if he swore falsely, could be indicted and convicted therefor. Williams’ case, 28 Texas Crim. App., 302; Shannon’s case, 28 Texas Crim. App., 474.

The judgment is affirmed.

, Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.W. 395, 33 Tex. Crim. 314, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-state-texcrimapp-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack