# Strauss v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 20, 1915 · 76 Tex. Crim. 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3923848

## Case

- **Full name:** Minnie Strauss v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 20, 1915
- **Citations:** 76 Tex. Crim. 132; 173 S.W. 663; 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum
- **Judges:** Davidson, Haepee, Harper, Pbehdebgast
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3923848

## Opinion text

I do not agree that bill No. 3 presents error. The witness Randall was permitted to testify that he had not had intercourse with the woman. Then the question was asked by defendant, "What were you intending to do if the officers had not entered the house when they did?" I do not think what he would testify he intended to do would be admissible. He was permitted to testify to all the facts within his knowledge, but I do not agree that what he would say was his intention thereafter to do would be admissible. And while agreeing that the ordinance is valid, I am of the opinion the case should be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3923848. Public record. Not legal advice.