From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. the State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 24, 1904
46 Tex. Crim. 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1904)

Summary

In Brown v. State, 46 Tex. Crim. 572, 81 S.W. Rep., 718, we held that the omission of the word "by" from this prescribed commencement of the indictment rendered the indictment vicious.

Summary of this case from Moss v. the State

Opinion

No. 2834.

Decided June 24, 1904.

Indictment — Constitutional Law.

An indictment which does not begin: "In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas," is fatally defective.

Appeal from the District Court of San Jacinto. Tried below before Hon. L.B. Hightower.

Appeal from a conviction of theft of cattle; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

No statement necessary.

P.R. Rowe, for appellant. — All indictments must commence "In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas." State Constitution, art. 5, sec. 12; Code Crim. Proc., art. 439; Cooley's Const. Lim., chap. 4, pp. 93-4; Cox v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 254; Saine v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 144; Leach v. State, 36 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Wright v. State, 37 Tex. Crim. 3; Bird v. State, 37 Tex.Crim. Rep.; State v. Durst, 7 Tex. 74; Hunt v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 396.

Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.


Conviction of cattle theft; four years in the penitentiary fixed as a penalty. The indictment is attacked because it begins, "In the name and the authority of the State of Texas," the word "by" being omitted and "the" inserted, whereas the constitutional requirement is that it shall begin "In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas." This objection is well taken. The question has been so often decided we deem it unnecessary to enter into a further discussion of it. Saine v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 144; Jefferson v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 535; Owens v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 552; Thompson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 39; Thompson v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 168; Scroggins v. State, 36 Tex.Crim. Rep.; White's Ann. C.C.P., secs, 336, 345. We deem the other questions raised without merit. The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.


Summaries of

Brown v. the State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 24, 1904
46 Tex. Crim. 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1904)

In Brown v. State, 46 Tex. Crim. 572, 81 S.W. Rep., 718, we held that the omission of the word "by" from this prescribed commencement of the indictment rendered the indictment vicious.

Summary of this case from Moss v. the State
Case details for

Brown v. the State

Case Details

Full title:BOB BROWN v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 24, 1904

Citations

46 Tex. Crim. 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1904)
81 S.W. 718

Citing Cases

People v. Minet

In State of Iowa v. Wood ( 112 Iowa 484) under a statute similar to our own, it was held that, where a father…

White v. State

We express the opinion that such statement of the juror was but a bare allusion to appellant's failure to…