Broadhead v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Broadhead v. State

252 S.W.2d 194, 157 Tex. Crim. 634, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1921

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 5, 1952

DocketNo. 26,011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 252 S.W.2d 194 (Broadhead 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

Broadhead v. State, 252 S.W.2d 194, 157 Tex. Crim. 634, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1921 (Tex. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale with allegations of former convictions for enhancing the penalty. The jury assessed a fine of $1500.00.

The record shows that objection was duly made to the complaint, in so far as it alleged former convictions, because they [635]*635were not alleged as facts by the sheriff, who signed the complaint, but consisted of “presentations” made by the county attorney in the same instrument. To correct this error the court permitted the county attorney to amend the affidavit of the sheriff, inserting the sheriff’s name instead of his own. This was done after the affidavit had been filed and before an announcement by the defendant in the case.

We have so frequently held that affidavits can not be amended after being filed that it is hardly necessary to cite the cases. The reason is perfectly apparent and especially in the case now before us, because one person cannot change another’s affidavit. The attempt to amend is fatal and it is accordingly ordered that the judgment rendered thereon be reversed and the prosecution upon the complaint be dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the state to file a new complaint.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale with allegations of former convictions for enhancing the penalty. The jury assessed a fine of $1500.00.

The record shows that objection was duly made to the complaint, in so far as it alleged former convictions, because they [635]*635were not alleged as facts by the sheriff, who signed the complaint, but consisted of “presentations” made by the county attorney in the same instrument. To correct this error the court permitted the county attorney to amend the affidavit of the sheriff, inserting the sheriff’s name instead of his own. This was done after the affidavit had been filed and before an announcement by the defendant in the case.

We have so frequently held that affidavits can not be amended after being filed that it is hardly necessary to cite the cases. The reason is perfectly apparent and especially in the case now before us, because one person cannot change another’s affidavit. The attempt to amend is fatal and it is accordingly ordered that the judgment rendered thereon be reversed and the prosecution upon the complaint be dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the state to file a new complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.W.2d 194, 157 Tex. Crim. 634, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadhead-v-state-texcrimapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack