Fuller v. the State

5 Citing cases

  1. Benson v. the State

    254 S.W. 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 13 times

    Such a recital has been uniformly held an insufficient basis upon which to secure the review by this court. See Fuller v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 14; Bigham v. State, 76 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Hamlin v. State, 39 Tex.Crim. Rep.; McKinney v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. 434; Burt v. State, 38 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Benson v. State, 69 S.W. Rep. 165; Douglas v. State, 58 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Conger v. State, 63 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Overby v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 172; Vernon's Tex.Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 745, subdivision 38. The bill, however, contains a direct averment that by the examination, appellant would have been able to show that some of the jurors were members of the organization mentioned, and that such jurors were prejudiced by instructions given them by the organization to qualify as jurors to convict the appellant.

  2. Fuller v. the State

    113 S.W. 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 1908)   Cited 3 times

    The opinion states the case. See Fuller v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 14. E.B. Robb and Geo. S. King, for appellant. — On question of threats: Holley v. State, 39 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 46 S.W. Rep., 39; Godwin v. State, 38 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 43 S.W. Rep., 336; Garrett v. State, 52 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 20 Texas Ct. Rep., 552. On question of charge on manslaughter: Bays v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 548; 99 S.W. Rep., 561, and cases cited in opinion.

  3. Wilkirson v. State

    296 S.W. 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1927)   Cited 3 times

    Under such circumstances the State's theory can only be deduced from other facts and circumstances in evidence, and the court should avoid singling out and charging the jury with reference to them. Dobbs v. State, 51 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 100 S.W. 946; Parnell v. State, 51 Tex.Crim. Rep., 103 S.W. 907; Hazlett v. State, 96 S.W. 36; Carroll v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 485, 98 S.W. 859; Fuller v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 14, 95 S.W. 541; Walters v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 388; Milrainey v. State, 33 Tex.Crim. Rep.."

  4. Cavanar v. State

    99 Tex. Crim. 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 19 times

    This is emphasized in Douglas v. State, 58 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Fuller v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 14; Bigham v. State, 36 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Hamlin v. State, 39 Tex.Crim.

  5. Douglas v. the State

    58 Tex. Crim. 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)   Cited 21 times

    Rep.[ 33 Tex. Crim. 7]. It is also the settled rule of practice in this State that the mere statement of a ground of objection in the bill is not the certificate of the judge that the fact stated is true. Fuller v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 14; Bigham v. State, 36 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Hamlin v. State, 39 Tex.Crim.