Conklin v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
HAWKINS, Presiding, Judge.
Conviction is for exhibiting a gaming device, towit: a marble machine for the purpose of gaming, the punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.(1) When the case was called for trial appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that three persons were on the grand jury which returned the indictment each of whom was subject to challenge for cause. It is averred in the motion to quash, and supported by proof, that the grand jury was impaneled on May 5, 1941; that the indictment against appellant was returned on June 25, 1941, wherein it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hickox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Staton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- McAllister v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Sumner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cassell v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Donald v. Dumont v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Tyson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Howard v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1986
- Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1943
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.