Jester v. State

9 S.W. 616, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 369, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 3, 1888·No. No. 2785·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Willson, Judge.

It appears from the record that the defendant was tried by a jury of six men. Such trial was not in accordance with law, and the conviction must be set aside. (Const., art. 5, sec. 13; Code Crim. Proc., art. 595; Rich v. The State, 1 Texas Ct. App., 206; Huebner v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App., 458; Marks v. The State, 10 Texas Ct. App., 334.) This error in the conviction is confessed by the Assistant Attorney General.

In the indictment, as it appears in the record, there is a fatal defect, in so far as it undertakes to charge burglary. It alleges that the defendant “then and there, by force, break and enter a house,” etc., omitting the essential word “did.” If guch [370]*370omission be in tbe original indictment, a conviction for said offense can not be sustained upon it. (Walker v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 177; Moore v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 42.) The indictment, however, is a good one for the offense of theft. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion delivered November 3, 1888.

Reversed and remanded,

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

Jester v. State, 9 S.W. 616, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 369, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199 (Tex. Ct. App. 1888).

9 S.W. 616 (Jester v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trinidad v. State
312 S.W.3d 23 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Trinidad, Frank
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010
Pass v. State
634 S.W.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Zapata v. State
493 S.W.2d 801 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Clark v. State
276 S.W.2d 819 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1955)