State v. Sneed
Citations
- 25 Tex. 66
Syllabus
<p>Where an offense under the statute was barred by limitations at the time the Code went into1 effect, the extension by the latter, of the time necessary to bar the offense, will not revive the right of action in the State; and a prosecution of the same cannot be maintained. (Penal Code, Art. 186; Paschal’s Digest, Art. 2653, Note 706.)</p> <p>The Legislature cannot have intended to give an ex post facto operation to the • Code.*</p>
Judges: Egberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Kring v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1883-04-18· cited 472×
- Stogner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 2003-06-26· cited 356×
- Phillips, William RayCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2011-06-15· cited 55×
- Russell & Seisfeld v. KirkbrideTexas Supreme Court· 1884-11-21· cited 33×
- Moore v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1881-03-15· cited 31×
- State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court· 1910-03-15· cited 28×
- United States v. SalbergN.D. Ohio· 1923-02-13· cited 12×
- Johnson v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-04-21· cited 8×
- State v. Eric Michael HeilmanTex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 2013-10-16· cited 6×
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.