Legal Opinion

Spencer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 15, 1930No. 13476Published

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion

on state’s motion foe rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

In support of the contention of state’s counsel in his motion for rehearing, namely, that the variance pointed out in the appellant’s motion for rehearing is not available because raised after verdict and was not material, the following precedents are cited: Pool v. State, 278 S. W., 212; Inness v. State, 293 S. W., 821; Ward v. State, 277 S. W., 672; Moreno v. State, 143 S. W., 156; article 763, C. C. P, 1925.

Our examination of the authorities in the light of the record leaves us of the opinion that the motion should be overruled, which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moreno v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911
  2. Inness v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1926
  3. Pool v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
  4. Ward v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API