Sutton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sutton v. State

242 S.W.2d 420, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 3, 1951

DocketNo. 25366

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 S.W.2d 420 (Sutton 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

Sutton v. State, 242 S.W.2d 420, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property of the value in excess of $5 and less than $50 and was assessed a penalty of thirty days in jail.

The State’s Attorney, in his brief, admits doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction. We think it is definitely insufficient: The state relies upon the evidence of an accomplice witness and no effort was made to corroborate the same. We find in the record reference to a statement being signed by appellant but it is not included in the statement of facts and there is nothing to show its contents. Other defects in- the record need not be discussed.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property of the value in excess of $5 and less than $50 and was assessed a penalty of thirty days in jail.

The State’s Attorney, in his brief, admits doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction. We think it is definitely insufficient: The state relies upon the evidence of an accomplice witness and no effort was made to corroborate the same. We find in the record reference to a statement being signed by appellant but it is not included in the statement of facts and there is nothing to show its contents. Other defects in- the record need not be discussed.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 S.W.2d 420, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack