Hall v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
2Per curiam
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 43.23(c)(1) provides that a person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he possesses with intent to promote any obscene device. Charged inter alia on the presumptions prescribed by § 43.23(e) and (f), respectively, a jury found appellant guilty of possessing with intent to promote an ob*102scene device, namely, twenty nine dildos, knowing the content and character of the device. The Houston (1st) Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, finding the statutory presumptions are facially…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Skinner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Hall v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1982
- Skinner v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1982
4Cited by26 opinions
- Southwick v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1985
- Shealy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
- Hoyle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
- Regalado v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994
- Gonzales v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1984
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.