Pippen v. State

278 S.W. 205, 102 Tex. Crim. 381, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1143
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 25, 1925
DocketNo. 9684.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 S.W. 205 (Pippen 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
Pippen v. State, 278 S.W. 205, 102 Tex. Crim. 381, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1143 (Tex. 1925).

Opinion

*382 LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hunt County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

But one witness gave testimony. He swore that he and another man made whiskey and that he sold a quantity of it to appellant who transported it away from the place of purchase to some other place. This witness was an accomplice. Cate v. State, 272 S. W. Rep. 210. A conviction resting solely upon the testimony of one or any number of accomplices, cannot be sustained. The evidence being insufficient to support the judgment, a reversal is "ordered.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Flowers v. State
43 S.W.2d 119 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Adams v. State
287 S.W. 499 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 S.W. 205, 102 Tex. Crim. 381, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pippen-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.