Johnson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Johnson v. State

40 S.W. 976, 38 Tex. Crim. 26, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 170

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 2, 1897·No. No. 1122.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

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.

Johnson v. State, 40 S.W. 976, 38 Tex. Crim. 26, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 170 (Tex. 1897).

Pincite

40 S.W. 976 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related