King v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1900 |
| Parties | KING v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Falls county court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge.
Norma King was convicted of theft, and she appeals. Reversed.
Rice & Bartlett, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of misdemeanor theft. When the case was called for trial, motion was made by appellant's counsel to allow the two days authorized by statute in which to prepare for her defense. The information was filed on the day of the trial. This motion was well taken, and should have been sustained. Article 567, Code Cr. Proc. This question has been before this court several times. The last case is Evans v. State, 35 S. W. 169.
The charge of the court in regard to the subject of possession of recently stolen property was excepted to upon various grounds. We deem it unnecessary to reproduce the charge, or comment upon it. The charge given has been the subject of adverse criticism by this court in quite a number of cases. See Smith v. State (Dallas term, 1900) 56 S. W. 54; McCarty v. State, 35 S. W. 994; Scott v. State, 36 S. W. 276; Wheeler v. State, 30 S. W. 913.
The other errors assigned are not well taken. For the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollywood v. State
...580; State v. Louis, 1 Bay, 1; Comm. v. Winnemore, 2 Brewst. 378; Hunt v. State, (Ga.) 27 S.E. 670; People v. Carlton, 5 Utah, 451; King v. State, 56 S.W. 926; Lackwood State, 22 S.W. 413; People v. Winthrop, 118 Cal. 85; Blackmore v. State, 76 Ga. 288; North v. People, 139 Ill. 81; State v......