Carlton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Carlton v. State

106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 537, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 322

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 2, 1937

DocketNo. 19127.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 S.W.2d 279 (Carlton 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

Carlton v. State, 106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 537, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 322 (Tex. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is theft of a check; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

The indictment contains the averment that the appellant “did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take one check of the value of $4332.00, the same being the corporeal personal property of W. R. Pounders.”

Appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment because it fails to sufficiently describe the property alleged to have been stolen. The evidence heard upon the trial is" not brought forward for review. However, from our examination of the indictment we fail to find any information as to the date of the check or the number thereof, the bank on which it was drawn, to whom it was payable, or by whom it was signed. We do not think that the averment mentioned contains a sufficient description of the property.

In the case of Calentine v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 154, an indictment was held insufficient which described the property as a promissory note of the value of $31.80, without ■ alleging by whom it was executed, the date of its execution or its maturity, or its face value. See Tex. Jur., Vol. 41, p. 117, sec. 73.

Because of the defect in the indictment mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is theft of a check; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

The indictment contains the averment that the appellant “did then and there unlawfully and fraudulently take one check of the value of $4332.00, the same being the corporeal personal property of W. R. Pounders.”

Appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment because it fails to sufficiently describe the property alleged to have been stolen. The evidence heard upon the trial is" not brought forward for review. However, from our examination of the indictment we fail to find any information as to the date of the check or the number thereof, the bank on which it was drawn, to whom it was payable, or by whom it was signed. We do not think that the averment mentioned contains a sufficient description of the property.

In the case of Calentine v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 154, an indictment was held insufficient which described the property as a promissory note of the value of $31.80, without ■ alleging by whom it was executed, the date of its execution or its maturity, or its face value. See Tex. Jur., Vol. 41, p. 117, sec. 73.

Because of the defect in the indictment mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 537, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlton-v-state-texcrimapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack