Bell Crawford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bell Crawford v. State

227 S.W. 317, 88 Tex. Crim. 415, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 259

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 26, 1921

DocketNo. 6066.

StatusPublished

This text of 227 S.W. 317 (Bell Crawford 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

Bell Crawford v. State, 227 S.W. 317, 88 Tex. Crim. 415, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 259 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellants were convicted of theft. The complaint upon which the information is based does not begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” The information does begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” Motion in arrest of judgment was made because the complaint did not begin with the constitutional requirements: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” This question has been before the court in several cases. It has been held that if the prosecution is upon an information it is not essential that the complaint on which it is based should begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” The information contains that necessary statement. It has been further held that where the prosecution is based alone upon a complaint in a court where such offense may be prosecuted, it is invalid unless it begins by using the words: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas;” but if it does so begin in the information, then the omission of such expression from *416 the complaint is not fatal. Saine v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 144; Brown v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 572; Ex Parte Jackson, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 324; Treadway v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 546; Jefferson v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 535; Johnson v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 465; Sessions v. State, 98 S. W. Rep., 243. Under these authorities the motion in arrest of judgment ovas correctly overruled. Had this case been prosecuted alone upon a complaint and not upon a complaint and information, a different holding would result. This criminal proceeding is carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Texas as contained in the information, predicated upon the complaint. Therefore, under the authorities it is sufficient, and the court was correct in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellants were convicted of theft. The complaint upon which the information is based does not begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” The information does begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” Motion in arrest of judgment was made because the complaint did not begin with the constitutional requirements: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” This question has been before the court in several cases. It has been held that if the prosecution is upon an information it is not essential that the complaint on which it is based should begin “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas.” The information contains that necessary statement. It has been further held that where the prosecution is based alone upon a complaint in a court where such offense may be prosecuted, it is invalid unless it begins by using the words: “In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas;” but if it does so begin in the information, then the omission of such expression from *416 the complaint is not fatal. Saine v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 144; Brown v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 572; Ex Parte Jackson, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 324; Treadway v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 546; Jefferson v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 535; Johnson v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 465; Sessions v. State, 98 S. W. Rep., 243. Under these authorities the motion in arrest of judgment ovas correctly overruled. Had this case been prosecuted alone upon a complaint and not upon a complaint and information, a different holding would result. This criminal proceeding is carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Texas as contained in the information, predicated upon the complaint. Therefore, under the authorities it is sufficient, and the court was correct in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.W. 317, 88 Tex. Crim. 415, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-crawford-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack