Parks v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
This appeal is from a conviction for seduction, the punishment assessed being four years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. In view of the disposition made by the court of this case, on this appeal, it becomes unnecessary to make a statement of the same. It will be seen that the reversal was solely on account of improper and prejudicial argument made by counsel representing the prosecution. The objectionable language is fully disclosed in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HURT, Presiding Judge.
Appellant in this case was tried for seduction, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at four years in the penitentiary. A great number of assignments of error are contained in the record, but we will only notice such as appear to us to be important. Appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling his motion for a continuance. The same question is also presented in his motion for a new trial. The most material witness, to-wit: W. II. Parks, for whom the application for continuance was asked, was present in court, and testified on the trial. As to two of…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Norman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Bronson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Williams v. City of AnnistonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
- McKinley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Christison v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1957
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.