Hogan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hogan v. State

143 S.W. 184, 65 Tex. Crim. 50, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 57

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 24, 1912

DocketNo. 1680.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 S.W. 184 (Hogan 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

Hogan v. State, 143 S.W. 184, 65 Tex. Crim. 50, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 57 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

There is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception found in the record. There is a motion for new trial, which alleges several grounds why it should have been granted in the trial court, none of which, we think, have any merit in them. Most of these refer to matters of evidence, which can not be considered in the absence of statement of facts.

The indictment charges a burglary at night with intent to commit theft. The burglary is charged to have occurred on the 20th of *51 February. It is contended the evidence shows that it was in fact committed on the 20th of January, inasmuch as the record shows that defendant was in the county jail on the 20th of February and had been since the 21st of January. This is a matter of no moment, even if the facts were before us and sustained the allegation. The burglary occurred before the presentment of the indictment, which was on the 24th of March. The allegation of the date of the offense is relegated to the question of limitation, provided the offense be charged to have been committed before the return of the indictment.

There is an exception also to the charge, which is very general, but in any event it will not be considered in the absence of statement of facts, because it does not set up any such error as would authorize a reversal where proof could sustain allegations in the indictment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

There is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception found in the record. There is a motion for new trial, which alleges several grounds why it should have been granted in the trial court, none of which, we think, have any merit in them. Most of these refer to matters of evidence, which can not be considered in the absence of statement of facts.

The indictment charges a burglary at night with intent to commit theft. The burglary is charged to have occurred on the 20th of *51 February. It is contended the evidence shows that it was in fact committed on the 20th of January, inasmuch as the record shows that defendant was in the county jail on the 20th of February and had been since the 21st of January. This is a matter of no moment, even if the facts were before us and sustained the allegation. The burglary occurred before the presentment of the indictment, which was on the 24th of March. The allegation of the date of the offense is relegated to the question of limitation, provided the offense be charged to have been committed before the return of the indictment.

There is an exception also to the charge, which is very general, but in any event it will not be considered in the absence of statement of facts, because it does not set up any such error as would authorize a reversal where proof could sustain allegations in the indictment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.W. 184, 65 Tex. Crim. 50, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack