Ira Haney v. State

37 S.W.2d 746, 117 Tex. Crim. 564, 1931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 489

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 25, 1931
• Docket: No. 14006.
• Status: Published

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

— The offense is theft of cattle; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment alleges that appellant “did then and there unlawfully take one head of cattle,” etc., omitting the word “fraudulently”. The use of the word “fraudulently” is indispensable in charging theft under our statute. Byrd v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 371, 231 S. W., 399; Prim v. State, 32 Texas, 158; Conner v. State, 6 Texas App., 455; Young v. State, 12 Texas App., 614; Muldrew v. State, 12 Texas App., 617; Sloan v. State, 18 Texas App., 225; Ortis v. State, 18 Texas App., 282; Ware v. State, 19 Texas App., 13; Chance v. State, 27 Texas App., 441, 11 S. W., 457; Doxey v. State (Tex. Sup.), 12 S. W., 412; Watt v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 662, 136 S. W., 56; Baldwin v. State, 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 499, 175 S. W., 701; Newman v. State, 113 Texas Crim. Rep., 517, 23 S. W. (2d) 367. In Byrd v. State, supra, it was held that an allegation that the appellant “did unlawfully take, steal and carry away” was not equivalent to an averment that, he “did then and there fraudulently take,” etc.

The judgment is reversed and .the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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