Legal Opinion

Stanley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 21, 1940No. 20769PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is keeping and exhibiting a gaming device; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

It was charged in the indictment that appellant and F. E. Von Mockel “did directly and through their agent, M. A. Rutledge, keep and exhibit for the purpose of gaming a gaming device, to-wit: a marble machine.” The case was submitted to the jury alone upon the theory that appéllant acted through Rutledge, his alleged agent. The marble machine in question was kept and exhibited in the barber shop of M. A. Rutledge. The State relied almost entirely upon the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Meeks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
  2. De Lerosa v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
  3. Steadham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  4. Slone v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  5. Andrews v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Peek v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
  2. Vital v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1975
  3. Hamilton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. Stanley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1941
  5. Kepley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1965

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API