Gorzell v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of seduction, and his punishment assessed at four years confinement in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.
There are a number of errors assigned in the record, but it is only necessary to discuss two of them. Appellant'insists the court erred in his charge in failing to define the term “seduction.” An examination of the court’s charge discloses there was no charge given on this subject. We have held in a number of cases that it was necessary for the court in its charge to define this term. Putnam v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 456; McCullar v. State,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McCullar v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Merrell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1900
3Cited by8 opinions
- Slaughter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Simmons v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Garlas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Loeb v. WilhiteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949
- Gleason v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.