Fuller v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Fuller v. State

167 S.W.2d 170, 145 Tex. Crim. 190, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 542

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 18, 1942

DocketNo. 22291

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 S.W.2d 170 (Fuller 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

Fuller v. State, 167 S.W.2d 170, 145 Tex. Crim. 190, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 542 (Tex. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the State penitentiary for a period of twelve years.

The only question presented for review is a claimed variance between the name of the alleged injured party and the proof in support thereof. It appears from the indictment that the name of the injured party was Paul Hamons, but he testified that it was Hamon. However, there is testimony from other source that he was generally called Hamons. The rule seems to be well settled in this State that if a party is known as well by one name as another, it is immaterial. which is his true name. Art. 401, C. C. P. See Owen v. State, 7 Tex. Cr. App. 335; Gafford v. State, 100 S. W. 375; Gatlin v. State, 163 S. W. 428; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., p. 238, sec. 460, and authorities there cited.

The record shows that appellant and his companion in the crime both testified and each one admitted that they committed the robbery by assault as charged in the indictment. Consequently the conviction of appellant is amply supported by the evidence.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

[192]*192The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the State penitentiary for a period of twelve years.

The only question presented for review is a claimed variance between the name of the alleged injured party and the proof in support thereof. It appears from the indictment that the name of the injured party was Paul Hamons, but he testified that it was Hamon. However, there is testimony from other source that he was generally called Hamons. The rule seems to be well settled in this State that if a party is known as well by one name as another, it is immaterial. which is his true name. Art. 401, C. C. P. See Owen v. State, 7 Tex. Cr. App. 335; Gafford v. State, 100 S. W. 375; Gatlin v. State, 163 S. W. 428; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., p. 238, sec. 460, and authorities there cited.

The record shows that appellant and his companion in the crime both testified and each one admitted that they committed the robbery by assault as charged in the indictment. Consequently the conviction of appellant is amply supported by the evidence.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

[192]*192The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.W.2d 170, 145 Tex. Crim. 190, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-state-texcrimapp-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack