Adamson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Adamson v. State

234 S.W. 532, 90 Tex. Crim. 221, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 2, 1921

DocketNo. 6425.

StatusPublished

This text of 234 S.W. 532 (Adamson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adamson v. State, 234 S.W. 532, 90 Tex. Crim. 221, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to the penitentiary for two years upon a conviction for perjury.

Motion was made to quash the indictment upon the ground that there was a failure to charge that the alleged false statement before the grand jury was material to the matter under investigation before that body. An inspection of the indictment reveals the absence of such allegations. If this were a question of first impression the writer would be inclined to the view that, taking the indictment as a whole, the materiality of the alleged false statement is shown, but there is a long line of cases to the contrary. The indictments in the Bell case, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 401, 171 S. W. Rep., 239; and in the Scott case, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 396, 171 S. W. Rep., 243, are identical with the one under consideration. Under authority of these cases the assistant attorney general has confessed error. Incident to a discussion of the many allegations in the Bell indictment, the court concludes:

“It was proper to make all or any of these allegations; but they, nor . either of them, supply the necessary allegation that what he testified was material to the issue. Nor do all the allegaticms taken together sufficiently show that what he testified was material to the issue, as held and illustrated in Buller v. State, supra; McMurtry v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 521, 43 S. W. 1010; Miller v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 368, 65 S. W. 908; Rosebud v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 475, 98 S. *222 W. 858; Morris v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 423, 83 S. W. 1126, and other cases.”

This same question was under consideration in State v. Highsaw, just decided October 26th. Under these many authorities the indictment in the instant case must be held defective.

In view of a re-indictment we would call attention to a probably inadvertent allegation that one of the material inquiries was “whether or not” appellant had seen one Packard playing cards, etc. It would hardly be material to establish that appellant had not seen Packard engaged in gaming. We refer to it as probably an oversight, as the other matters stated as material inquiries are not subject to this criticism.

The judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and the prosecution under this indictment dismissed.

Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to the penitentiary for two years upon a conviction for perjury.

Motion was made to quash the indictment upon the ground that there was a failure to charge that the alleged false statement before the grand jury was material to the matter under investigation before that body. An inspection of the indictment reveals the absence of such allegations. If this were a question of first impression the writer would be inclined to the view that, taking the indictment as a whole, the materiality of the alleged false statement is shown, but there is a long line of cases to the contrary. The indictments in the Bell case, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 401, 171 S. W. Rep., 239; and in the Scott case, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 396, 171 S. W. Rep., 243, are identical with the one under consideration. Under authority of these cases the assistant attorney general has confessed error. Incident to a discussion of the many allegations in the Bell indictment, the court concludes:

“It was proper to make all or any of these allegations; but they, nor . either of them, supply the necessary allegation that what he testified was material to the issue. Nor do all the allegaticms taken together sufficiently show that what he testified was material to the issue, as held and illustrated in Buller v. State, supra; McMurtry v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 521, 43 S. W. 1010; Miller v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 368, 65 S. W. 908; Rosebud v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 475, 98 S. *222 W. 858; Morris v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 423, 83 S. W. 1126, and other cases.”

This same question was under consideration in State v. Highsaw, just decided October 26th. Under these many authorities the indictment in the instant case must be held defective.

In view of a re-indictment we would call attention to a probably inadvertent allegation that one of the material inquiries was “whether or not” appellant had seen one Packard playing cards, etc. It would hardly be material to establish that appellant had not seen Packard engaged in gaming. We refer to it as probably an oversight, as the other matters stated as material inquiries are not subject to this criticism.

The judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and the prosecution under this indictment dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.W. 532, 90 Tex. Crim. 221, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adamson-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack