Legal Opinion

Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 6, 1942No. 22097Published

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

As submitted by the trial court in his charge to the jury, the count in the indictment upon which this conviction is predicated charged that appellant did directly and through his agent, Joe Bostick, “unlawfully keep and exhibit for the purpose of gaming, a gaming device, to-wit, a marble machine.”

Appellant, in his motion for rehearing in this court, for the first time attacks the sufficiency of the indictment and insists that the term “marble machine” is vague, indefinite and uncertain; and that, in addition thereto, the allegation that the offense was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Osborne v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Stevens v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
  3. Villalva v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. Boyd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API