Harris v. State

60 S.W.2d 1039, 124 Tex. Crim. 80, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 366
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harris v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 118 Tex. Crim. 597
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 31, 1933·No. No.16015·Published

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a dirk; penalty assessed at confinement in [81]*81the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The offense is defined in article 483, P. C., 1925.

It appears from the record that a special county judge presided at the trial. However, the record fails to disclose the procedure by which the county judge was elected. It also fails to show that he took the oath of office prescribed by law. These matters must be shown by the record. See James v. State, 99 Texas Crim. Rep., 395, 269 S. W., 788. In the present condition of the record, the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. See Kahn v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 92, 30 S. W. (2d) 329.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Harris v. State, 60 S.W.2d 1039, 124 Tex. Crim. 80, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 366 (Tex. 1933).

60 S.W.2d 1039 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James v. State
269 S.W. 788 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Khan v. State
30 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)