Betels v. State

168 S.W.2d 499, 145 Tex. Crim. 368, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 751
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 10, 1943·No. No. 22396·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for unlawfully practicing medicine, punishment assessed at a fine of $50.00.

The prosecution was by complaint and information. The complaint recites that the party making it has good reason to believe that appellant committed the offense charged, but there is omitted from said complaint the further averment that complainant “does believe” appellant committed said offense. The latter averment is a statutory requisite. See Subdivision 2, Art. 222 C. C. P.; Smith v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 228, 280 S. W. 581 and cases therein cited. Also, see authorities in Note 11 under Art. 222 in Vernon’s Ann. Texas C. C. P., Vol. 1, and in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., Sec. 478, page 248.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

Betels v. State, 168 S.W.2d 499, 145 Tex. Crim. 368, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 751 (Tex. 1943).

168 S.W.2d 499 (Betels v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Young v. State
776 S.W.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Snyder v. State
329 S.W.2d 292 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Ex Parte Luehr
266 S.W.2d 375 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Bell v. State
240 S.W.2d 302 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Ex parte Glass
205 S.W.2d 46 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1947)