Betels v. State

168 S.W.2d 499, 145 Tex. Crim. 368, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 751
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 10, 1943
DocketNo. 22396
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.W.2d 499, 145 Tex. Crim. 368, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betels-v-state-texcrimapp-1943.