Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Smart v. State

Smart v. State

27 S.W.2d 813, 115 Tex. Crim. 147, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 384
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 19, 1930·No. No. 13160.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

There are no questions of law presented for review save the sufficiency of the evidence. A recital of the evidence is deemed unnecessary. The burglary was proved by the owner of the premises, and a part of the stolen property was found in the possession of the appellant. An accomplice testified, detailing the entire transaction and connecting the appellant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is adequate to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Smart v. State, 27 S.W.2d 813, 115 Tex. Crim. 147, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 384 (Tex. 1930).

27 S.W.2d 813 (Smart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards v. State
463 S.W.2d 733 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Tubbs v. State
60 S.W.2d 220 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Comeaux v. State
42 S.W.2d 255 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)