Sheffield v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
KRUEGER, Judge.
In his motion for a rehearing, appellant earnestly insists that we erred in our original opinion in declining to consider his Bill of Exception No. 1 because it is in question and answer form. He contends that since he objected to the testimony as being improper, it was necessary to set out the question and *336the answer thereto in order that this Court might properly determine the matter, and cites us to the cases of Bowers v. State, 134 S. W. (2d) 675 and Young v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 277 (243 S. W. 472, 473) as sustaining his contention. However, we…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Young v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Bowers v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Menefee v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Pannell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910