The case involved the conviction of the appellant for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale in a dry area of Lubbock County, Texas, resulting in a $200 fine. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on appeal because the record contained no statement of facts or bills of exception. The court reasoned that the appellant and counsel did not demonstrate they were without fault in failing to secure timely approval and filing of these documents within the 90-day period allowed after notice of appeal, as required under prior precedents.
The case involved the conviction of appellant for theft of an automobile, with punishment set at seven years in the penitentiary. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the indictment properly alleged ownership by Clifford David, Jr., who had exclusive possession and control of the car as a special owner, even though legal title was in his father. It rejected claims of jury misconduct due to lack of supporting evidence and determined that the evidence did not raise the issue of temporary insanity from intoxication, noting that mere drunkenness neither excuses the crime nor mitigates punishment under the court's charge. The trial court's instructions on possession and the non-excusing nature of intoxication were upheld as appropriate.
The case involved the conviction of Carter, Jr. for theft of an automobile, with a sentence of seven years imprisonment. The defendant challenged the proof of ownership in the indictment, the lack of a jury instruction on temporary insanity due to intoxication, and alleged jury misconduct. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the alleged owner had sufficient possession as a special owner, that the evidence did not raise the issue of temporary insanity, and that drunkenness does not excuse or mitigate the crime under Texas law. The court also found no evidence of jury misconduct and that the jury charge was appropriate.
The case of Ex Parte Harris involved a habeas corpus proceeding concerning an alleged sexual assault. The court considered a motion for rehearing and determined that prior precedents, such as Ex parte Merrill, which stressed the absence of a prompt complaint in cases of forcible ravishment, did not apply. This distinction was based on the fact that the present matter involved no claim of forcible ravishment. As a result, the motion for rehearing was overruled.
This case involves an appellant's motion for rehearing in a criminal matter concerning an alleged assault. The court determined that precedents emphasizing the absence of a prompt complaint, such as Ex parte Merrill, do not apply. The core reasoning is that those cases address forcible ravishment, which is not claimed here. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing was overruled.
This case concerns a relator's conviction for speeding in the Clarksville corporation court, where the complaint charged a violation of both state law (Art. 827a, sec. 8) and a city ordinance. The state moved for rehearing, claiming the conviction rested on the state statute rather than the ordinance. The court overruled the motion for rehearing, holding that the verdict and judgment were ambiguous and did not specify which law was violated. Without such a recital, the court could not determine the basis of the conviction, and the ordinance had already been ruled void in the original opinion.