Smith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Smith v. State

191 S.W.2d 138, 191 S.W. 138, 80 Tex. Crim. 497, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 10, 1917

DocketNo. 4326.

StatusPublished

This text of 191 S.W.2d 138 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 191 S.W.2d 138, 191 S.W. 138, 80 Tex. Crim. 497, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3 (Tex. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, with the lowest punishment assessed.

The sole question in the case is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The State introduced two witnesses, one of whom testified positively that appellant did have and carry a pistol. He was strongly corroborated hy the party he was with in some particulars. Appellant denied positively that she had the pistol at the time and place testified to hy the State’s witness, and her frieud who was .with her testified substantially tó the same thing. So that it is seen that the State’s testimony, if believed, unquestionably was sufficient to show the commission of the ofíense and authorized the verdict, while that of the accused would have authorized the jury to have acquitted her. The jury believed the State’s witnesses, and we can not disturb the verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PRENDERGAST, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, with the lowest punishment assessed.

The sole question in the case is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The State introduced two witnesses, one of whom testified positively that appellant did have and carry a pistol. He was strongly corroborated hy the party he was with in some particulars. Appellant denied positively that she had the pistol at the time and place testified to hy the State’s witness, and her frieud who was .with her testified substantially tó the same thing. So that it is seen that the State’s testimony, if believed, unquestionably was sufficient to show the commission of the ofíense and authorized the verdict, while that of the accused would have authorized the jury to have acquitted her. The jury believed the State’s witnesses, and we can not disturb the verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.W.2d 138, 191 S.W. 138, 80 Tex. Crim. 497, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-texcrimapp-1917.