Ewing v. State
This text of 1 Tex. Ct. App. 362 (Ewing v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The indictment in this case is fatally defective because it fails to allege that the defendant “ did” the acts charged as constituting the crime. This word is indis[363]*363pensable, and cannot be supplied by intendment. The State v. Hutchinson, 26 Texas, 111; The State v. Dougherty, 30 Texas, 360 ; Edmondson v. The State, 41 Texas, 496.
The record in this case nowhere discloses the fact that the jury trying the case were sworn. Pasc. Dig., Art. 3029 ; Arthur v. The State, 3 Texas, 405 ; Martin v. The State, 40 Texas, 19; Bawcom v. The State, 41 Texas, 189; Edmondson v. The State, 41 Texas, 496; Sutton v. The State, 41 Texas, 513; Bray v. The State, 41 Texas, 560; Burch v. The State, 43 Texas, 376; Rich v. The State, decided by this court at the Austin term, 1876, ante p. 206.
The judgment is reversed and the case dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Tex. Ct. App. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewing-v-state-texapp-1876.