Brodus v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
HAWKINS, Judge.
As requested in appellant’s motion for rehearing, we have again examined the statement of facts. We cannot agree with counsel that the evidence is insufficient. In our original opinion we attributed to appellant the statement that a certain trail used by the school children “was used by them and no one else." It should have read “was used by them and everybody else.”
By motion in arrest of judgment appellant attacked the law under which the conviction was had as being unconstitutional for permitting a greater penalty than fixed in the Volstead Act (27 U.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. LanzaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Vigliotti v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Ex Parte GilmoreCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- City of St. Louis ex rel. Contracting & Supply Co. v. Hill-O'Meara Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Goforth v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925