Moore v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Moore v. State

28 S.W.2d 151, 116 Tex. Crim. 67, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 655

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 14, 1930

DocketNo. 13336.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 S.W.2d 151 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 28 S.W.2d 151, 116 Tex. Crim. 67, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 655 (Tex. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary of a private residence; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

But one question seems to call for discussion. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment upon the ground that same failed to allege that the private residence charged to have been burglarized, was occupied and “actually used” as a residence by some person named, at the time of the alleged burglary. The motion was overruled. In this we think the learned trial judge in error. Jones v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep. 100; Johnson v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep. 116; Lewis v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep. 636; Geary v. State, 281 S. W. 1061.

Since the rendition of the opinion in Jones v. State, supra, this court seems to have uniformly adhered to the rule there laid down that the words “occupied and actually used” were so descriptive of the character of the residence as to make it necessary that they be used in the indictment charging a burglary of a private residence. Following the rule that such indictment as the one before us is bad, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary of a private residence; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

But one question seems to call for discussion. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment upon the ground that same failed to allege that the private residence charged to have been burglarized, was occupied and “actually used” as a residence by some person named, at the time of the alleged burglary. The motion was overruled. In this we think the learned trial judge in error. Jones v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep. 100; Johnson v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep. 116; Lewis v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep. 636; Geary v. State, 281 S. W. 1061.

Since the rendition of the opinion in Jones v. State, supra, this court seems to have uniformly adhered to the rule there laid down that the words “occupied and actually used” were so descriptive of the character of the residence as to make it necessary that they be used in the indictment charging a burglary of a private residence. Following the rule that such indictment as the one before us is bad, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.W.2d 151, 116 Tex. Crim. 67, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-texcrimapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack