Davis v. State
Citations
- 43 Tex. 189
Syllabus
<p>1. Leading questions.—If leading questions appear to have been allowed over objections the reasons for such irregularity should be given by the judge in the bill of exceptions. It is error to allow leading questions, there being no reason for allowing them furnished in the record.</p> <p>2. Bade.—Penetration should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury should be so instructed in prosecutions for rape.</p> <p>3. Apfidavit of juror will not he allowed to prove misconduct of the jury in the trial of a case.</p> <p>4. Penetration.—See facts held insufficient to prove penetration in a prosecution for rape. ,</p>
Judges: Devine
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Nilsson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1972-02-16· cited 123×
- Luna v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1974-11-13· cited 62×
- Caylat v. Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co.Texas Commission of Appeals· 1923-06-20· cited 43×
- State v. DeWittSupreme Court of Missouri· 1905-01-31· cited 40×
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1969-12-10· cited 30×
- Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. MillerTexas Commission of Appeals· 1932-04-21· cited 15×
- Galaviz v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1917-10-31· cited 9×
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1973-05-01· cited 4×
- Kingston v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1965-04-28· cited 3×
- State v. WelchOregon Supreme Court· 1902-05-03· cited 2×
- Wilson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1885-02-07· cited 1×
- Moose v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1902-10-31
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.