Escue v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Gordon v. State

    137 S.W.2d 1023 (Tex. Crim. App. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    This check was admissible upon the issue of intent and knowledge. See Stradford v. State, 299 S.W. 418; Escue v. State, 106 Tex. Crim. 506; 294 S.W. 202 and authorities cited; 18 Tex. Juris., pp. 70-74; Hanson v. State, No. 20673 recently decided by this Court but not yet reported. Appellant urged a number of objections to the court's charge.

  2. Strickland v. State

    116 Tex. Crim. 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)   Cited 1 times

    There are no exceptions to the charge. In his motion for rehearing the appellant, upon the authority of Modica v. State, 251 S.W. 1049; Smith v. State, 292 S.W. 879; Yeager v. State, 294 S.W. 202; Venturi v. State, 272 S.W. 212, contends that there being no designation of the particular count upon which the verdict is based, the court was without authority to enter a judgment. The cases apply a sound rule, namely, where plural counts charging separate felonies have been submitted to the jury and a general verdict returned assessing more than the minimum punishment and with the judgment following the verdict, that reversals have resulted.