History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kirkpatrick v. State
226 S.W. 1078
| Tex. Crim. App. | 1920
|
Check Treatment

Appellant was convicted of exhibiting a moving picture show on Sunday in violation of Article 302 P.C. *Page 301

The questions presented for revision are very interesting, and, in the opinion of the writer, ought to be sustained, but the majority of the court have held otherwise on each question. They have been thoroughly discussed by the court as it was constituted at the time the opinion in Ex parte Lingenfelder, 64 Tex. Crim. 30, was written, and again in Zucarro v. State,82 Tex. Crim. 1, after the personnel of the court had been changed. Again the questions were reviewed at this term of the court in Hegman v. State, just decided. The writer differed with the majority of the court on those questions, but his views have not obtained.

In obedience to those cases this judgment must be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Kirkpatrick v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Dec 16, 1920
Citation: 226 S.W. 1078
Docket Number: No. 5895.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.