Brown v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Brown v. State

140 S.W.2d 449, 139 Tex. Crim. 332, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 356

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 22, 1940

DocketNo. 21075

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 S.W.2d 449 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 140 S.W.2d 449, 139 Tex. Crim. 332, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 356 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and by the jury fined $50.00 and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for forty-five days.

We find no statement of facts in the record. We do find a motion to quash the indictment because it is alleged that the [333]*333same is duplicitous in that it charges the commission of two offenses in one count. We do not think the same subject to such objection. It charges in substance that appellant while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor drove and operated an automobile upon a public highway, etc. We gather that appellant’s objection to this count in the indictment is based upon the use of the conjunctive “and” instead of the disjunctive “or,” the latter of which being contained in Art. 802, P. C. denouncing this offense.

In Lewellen v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep. 640, 114 S. W. 1179; Harris v. State, 58 Texas Crim. 523, 126 S. W. 890; Canterberry v. State, 44 S. W. 522; Hunter v. State, 166 S. W. 164; Evage v. State, 125 S. W. (2d). 295, also Branch’s Penal Code, p. 556, Sec. 967, and many other cases there cited, it has been held:

“It is a well settled rule, in regard to this character of pleading, that where the statute makes two or more distinct acts connected with the same transaction indictable, and the pleader undertakes to charge more than one of the means found in .the statute, these must be plead conjunctively, although they may be stated in the alternative or disjunctively in the statute.” Lewellen v. State, supra.

We think the indictment presents a proper pleading.

We find no error presented in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and by the jury fined $50.00 and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for forty-five days.

We find no statement of facts in the record. We do find a motion to quash the indictment because it is alleged that the [333]*333same is duplicitous in that it charges the commission of two offenses in one count. We do not think the same subject to such objection. It charges in substance that appellant while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor drove and operated an automobile upon a public highway, etc. We gather that appellant’s objection to this count in the indictment is based upon the use of the conjunctive “and” instead of the disjunctive “or,” the latter of which being contained in Art. 802, P. C. denouncing this offense.

In Lewellen v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep. 640, 114 S. W. 1179; Harris v. State, 58 Texas Crim. 523, 126 S. W. 890; Canterberry v. State, 44 S. W. 522; Hunter v. State, 166 S. W. 164; Evage v. State, 125 S. W. (2d). 295, also Branch’s Penal Code, p. 556, Sec. 967, and many other cases there cited, it has been held:

“It is a well settled rule, in regard to this character of pleading, that where the statute makes two or more distinct acts connected with the same transaction indictable, and the pleader undertakes to charge more than one of the means found in .the statute, these must be plead conjunctively, although they may be stated in the alternative or disjunctively in the statute.” Lewellen v. State, supra.

We think the indictment presents a proper pleading.

We find no error presented in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.W.2d 449, 139 Tex. Crim. 332, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-texcrimapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack