Catchings v. State

15 Citing cases

  1. Glass v. State

    288 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    The sole question presented for review is the sufficiency of the complaint which was signed and sworn to by Rose Marie Murray, a secretary in the district attorney's office. Appellant's contention that the complaint is invalid has been recently overruled in Catchings v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 285 S.W.2d 233; Whiteside v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 286 S.W.2d 137; and Lurie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 288 S.W.2d 505. All proceedings appearing regular and no reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

  2. State v. McField

    649 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App. 2022)

    Yet, an administrative assistant or an investigator with the district attorney's office is a credible person who may serve as an affiant for a complaint. SeeCatchings v. State , 162 Tex.Crim. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233, 234 (1955) ; Linares , 2022 WL 710098, at *4 ; State v. Santillana , 612 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd) ("A complaint filed by a secretary for the Harris County District Attorney has been held to be a complaint by a ‘credible person,’ even though she did not have first-hand knowledge and based her affirmation on information from a police report and an instrument signed by a police officer."); Paulsen v. State , No. 01-99-000271-CR, 2000 WL 1678444, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 9, 2000, no pet.)

  3. State v. Linares

    No. 01-20-00598-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2022)

    Yet, an administrative assistant or an investigator with the district attorney's office is a credible person that may serve as an affiant for a complaint. See Catchings v. State, 285 S.W.2d 233, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955); State v. Santillana, 612 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd) ("A complaint filed by a secretary for the Harris County District Attorney has been held to be a complaint by a 'credible person,' even though she did not have first-hand knowledge and based her affirmation on information from a police report and an instrument signed by a police officer."); Paulsen v. State, No. 01-99-000271-CR, 2000 WL 1678444, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 9, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication)

  4. Peterson v. State

    781 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663, at 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 288 S.W.2d 522 (1956); Catchings v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 285 S.W.2d 233, at 234 (1955) Because an information must be based on a complaint, and the offense stated in the former "must be characterized by and correspond with that stated in the affidavit," Davis v. State, 2 Tex. App. 184[ 2 Tex.Crim. 184] (Ct.App. 1877), it is the affidavit, not the information, that specifies date the offense is alleged to have been committed.

  5. Wells v. State

    516 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 34 times

    A person authorized to present informations and conduct prosecutions cannot be the affiant to the complaint supporting an information. Catchings v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233; Kennedy v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 276 S.W.2d 291, 294, on motion for rehearing. The purpose for requiring a supporting affidavit before institution of a prosecution by information is to prevent one individual from being both the accuser and the prosecutor in misdemeanor cases.

  6. Butler v. State

    499 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 17 times

    Appellant contends that the information is void because the affidavit in support of said information was sworn to by a secretary, an agent of the Bexar County District Attorney; and, therefore, the affidavit was not sworn to by a credible person within the meaning of Art. 21.22, V.A.C.C.P. This contention is without merit. See Glass v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 288 S.W.2d 522; Catchings v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 285 S.W.2d 233. The record reflects that the body of the complaint and information both appear originally to have had the date of the offense listed on the '10th day of July, A.D., 1972.' On both instruments this date has been altered by hand to read the 8th day of April, 1972. Appellant contends that the alteration renders the affidavit and information void.

  7. Hager v. State

    487 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    Such has been held to be a valid complaint. Catchings v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 285 S.W.2d 233. Ground of error number 2 relates to the taking of the breathalyzer test.

  8. Redding v. State

    316 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    Bill of exception No. 2 relates to an oral motion to quash the information predicated on the contention that the complaint upon which it was based was sworn to by an incompetent person. A motion to quash must be in writing, but we note that there is an entire absence of any proof in the record that such is the case. If, however, we considered the objection as evidence, this Court has held, in Catchings v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 285 S.W.2d 233, that such a person is not incompetent. Bill of exception No. 3 relates to the action of the court in instructing the jury not to consider certain testimony as to the appellant's good reputation from the witness Hawkins.

  9. Richards v. State

    305 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)   Cited 7 times

    The record reflects that Hernandez was a sergeant with the San Antonio Police Department and that he signed and based the complaint upon information he received from a booking slip and officer's report in the case. In Catchings v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 285 S.W.2d 233, 234, we restated the rule that an information may be predicated upon a complaint or affidavit made upon information and belief and held that a secretary in a district attorney's office whose complaint was based upon information received through 'an offense report' was a credible person authorized to make a valid complaint. Under the record, Hernandez was shown to be a credible person and authorized to make the complaint against appellant. Appellant's further contention that the complaint was not properly sworn to by Sgt. Hernandez is not supported by the record and is overruled.

  10. Lurie v. State

    288 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    Appellant contends that the complaint upon which the information is based is invalid because it was signed by a secretary who was employed in the District Attorney's office and for such reason she was not a credible person. This contention is overruled under the opinion in Catchings v. State, 285 S.W.2d 233, delivered by this Court on November 16, 1955, and not yet reported, in which we held the same secretary to be a credible person and authorized to make a valid complaint under facts similar to those presented in the instant case. Appellant insists that the verdict of the jury is insufficient to support the judgment because it did not find him guilty of the offense of aggravated assault and that the jail term of thirty days fixed therein is not the penalty prescribed by Article 1148, Vernon's Ann.P.C., which provides for a fine and also imprisonment in jail for not less than one (1) month or more than two (2) years.