Legal Opinion

Grohoske v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 31, 1933No. 15869Published

1Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing appellant renews his complaint because the court failed to charge upon his right to arrest deceased, and further urges Kilpatrick v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 891, 189 S. W. 267 as authority. In our original opinion we endeavored to point out the distinguishing features between that case and the present one. In Kilpat-rick’s Case there was a sharp issue whether accused was trying to arrest. The state’s case made out an unprovoked killing, while accused’s testimony was to the effect that the killing occurred while he was defending…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williford v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
  2. Kilpatrick, Jr. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916
  3. Louder v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  4. Boyd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API