Popinaw v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Popinaw v. State

107 S.W. 850, 52 Tex. Crim. 409, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 29, 1908

DocketNo. 3999.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 S.W. 850 (Popinaw 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

Popinaw v. State, 107 S.W. 850, 52 Tex. Crim. 409, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28 (Tex. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. Bill of exceptions Ho. 3 shows before defendant pleaded to the indictment he suggested his right name was “George Popnoy,” he having been indicted as “George Popinaw.” On motion for a new trial when the above action of the court was complained of, the State had J. M. Spotts. and defendant’s brother, sworn, and they testified as follows: J. M. Spotts, over appellant’s objection, stated, “I have known the defendant all my life. He was always called George Popenaugh; never heard him called anything else; have written his -name that way a number of times, but never wrote it that way at his dictation, and never heard him spell or pronounce his name.” Defendant’s brother testified that appellant’s name was “George Popnoy.” This is reversible error. The court should have complied with appellant’s suggestion. The statute is mandatory. See Sinclair v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 453; Clark v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 456.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the other questions raised in this record.

For the error suggested, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. Bill of exceptions Ho. 3 shows before defendant pleaded to the indictment he suggested his right name was “George Popnoy,” he having been indicted as “George Popinaw.” On motion for a new trial when the above action of the court was complained of, the State had J. M. Spotts. and defendant’s brother, sworn, and they testified as follows: J. M. Spotts, over appellant’s objection, stated, “I have known the defendant all my life. He was always called George Popenaugh; never heard him called anything else; have written his -name that way a number of times, but never wrote it that way at his dictation, and never heard him spell or pronounce his name.” Defendant’s brother testified that appellant’s name was “George Popnoy.” This is reversible error. The court should have complied with appellant’s suggestion. The statute is mandatory. See Sinclair v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 453; Clark v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 456.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the other questions raised in this record.

For the error suggested, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.W. 850, 52 Tex. Crim. 409, 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popinaw-v-state-texcrimapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack