Hines and Childress v. State
This text of 85 S.W. 1057 (Hines and Childress 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.
Opinion
The indictment contains three counts: one -for swindling; one for theft, under the bailment statute, by conversion; and the other for theft. Motion was made to quash the count alleging swindling. We believe this motion was well taken that the count charging swindling was not legally sufficient. The count for theft is good. Swindling and theft were both submitted to the jury, and a general verdict was returned. Upon another trial the count for swindling will not be submitted in the charge. The verdict is as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged in the information, and assess their punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for six months.” Objection was urged to this for uncertainty. It is a joint and not a separate verdict against each defendant. The objections are well taken. Edwards v. State, 8 Texas Ct. Rep., 1004; Cunningham v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 83; Whit-comb v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 269.
Because of the uncertainty of the verdict of the jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Henderson, Judge, absent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
85 S.W. 1057, 48 Tex. Crim. 24, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-and-childress-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.