Johnson v. State
This text of 40 S.W. 976 (Johnson 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
Appellant was convicted, under article 256 of the Penal Code, for willfully receiving higher fees as county attorney than authorized by law. The recognizance recites that the defendant stands charged with the offense of “extortion.” The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance recites no offense against the law. Extortion is not an offense eo nomine. Therefore, in stating the offense in the recognizance, the constituent elements of the offense must be set out. See Schoonmaker v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 424. This was not done, and the motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
40 S.W. 976, 38 Tex. Crim. 26, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-texcrimapp-1897.