Tucker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Tucker v. State

70 S.W.2d 1118

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tucker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 119 Tex. Crim. 490 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 4, 1934·No. No. 16603·Published

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record. Appellant made a most general exception to the charge of the court, and claimed that a certain paragraph thereof put too great a burden on the defendant. We have examined the charge and think it not subject to the exception. The only other question is the sufficiency of the testimony. We have carefully examined the testimony, and are of [1119]*1119opinion that it shows appellant guilty of the charge against him, and we see no advantage to be derived from setting out the facts at length.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for theft; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record. Appellant made a most general exception to the charge of the court, and claimed that a certain paragraph thereof put too great a burden on the defendant. We have examined the charge and think it not subject to the exception. The only other question is the sufficiency of the testimony. We have carefully examined the testimony, and are of [1119]*1119opinion that it shows appellant guilty of the charge against him, and we see no advantage to be derived from setting out the facts at length.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Tucker v. State, 70 S.W.2d 1118 (Tex. 1934).

Pincite

70 S.W.2d 1118 (Tucker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.