Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Vincent Alfonso ZULPO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

OPINION

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is indecent exposure to a child; the punishment, 10 years.

Except for the fact that the exposure was to different girls under 16 years of age, the facts and the grounds of error are not materially different from those before us in the appeal of the same appellant in Zulpo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided. The opinion in the said companion case controls the disposition of this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

ONION, Judge. (Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part).

For the same reasons stated in our opinion in Zulpo v. State, 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided, Judge MORRISON and this writer concur in the result reached, but we cannot agree that oral stipulations, not in accordance in Article 1.15, C.C.P., may be considered in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ZULPO v. STATE
(Jun 21, 1967)