Louis v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Louis v. State

35 S.W. 377, 36 Tex. Crim. 52, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 27, 1896

DocketNo. 957.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 S.W. 377 (Louis 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

Louis v. State, 35 S.W. 377, 36 Tex. Crim. 52, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108 (Tex. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of carrying-brass knuckles. The information alleges that the appellant carried “brass knuckles.” The proof left it in doubt as to whether the knuckles were made of brass or some other metal. The proof supporting the information shows, however, that it was made of a metal. This court judicially knows that “brass knuckles” maybe composed of metal other *53 than brass, as steel, iron, etc.; and, when the information charges “brass knuckles,” it is equivalent to an allegation that they were made of metal or a hard substance. It is not an allegation charging that the knuckles were made of the' metal known as “brass.” This proposition is settled in Harris v. State, 22 Tex. Crim. App., 677. The court instructed the jury that “brass knuckles” meant knuckles made of any metal or hard substance. We so held in the case above cited. There is no variance or failure of proof in this case. It was not necessary to prove that the knuckles were made of the metal known as “brass,” and there was no error in the charge of the court. The statute does not read that, if any person shall carry, on or about his person, “brass knuckles,” or “knuckles made of metal or some other hard substance,” thus drawing a distinction •between brass knuckles and knuckles made of some other metal. If this had been the reading of the statute, the State would have been required to prove that the knuckles were composed of brass. The judgment is •affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of carrying-brass knuckles. The information alleges that the appellant carried “brass knuckles.” The proof left it in doubt as to whether the knuckles were made of brass or some other metal. The proof supporting the information shows, however, that it was made of a metal. This court judicially knows that “brass knuckles” maybe composed of metal other *53 than brass, as steel, iron, etc.; and, when the information charges “brass knuckles,” it is equivalent to an allegation that they were made of metal or a hard substance. It is not an allegation charging that the knuckles were made of the' metal known as “brass.” This proposition is settled in Harris v. State, 22 Tex. Crim. App., 677. The court instructed the jury that “brass knuckles” meant knuckles made of any metal or hard substance. We so held in the case above cited. There is no variance or failure of proof in this case. It was not necessary to prove that the knuckles were made of the metal known as “brass,” and there was no error in the charge of the court. The statute does not read that, if any person shall carry, on or about his person, “brass knuckles,” or “knuckles made of metal or some other hard substance,” thus drawing a distinction •between brass knuckles and knuckles made of some other metal. If this had been the reading of the statute, the State would have been required to prove that the knuckles were composed of brass. The judgment is •affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.W. 377, 36 Tex. Crim. 52, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-v-state-texcrimapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack