Shoemake and Rollins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Shoemake and Rollins v. State

232 S.W. 518, 89 Tex. Crim. 480, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 526

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 8, 1921

DocketNo. 6316.

StatusPublished

This text of 232 S.W. 518 (Shoemake and Rollins 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

Shoemake and Rollins v. State, 232 S.W. 518, 89 Tex. Crim. 480, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 526 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The appellants were convicted in the District Court of Brazoria County of the offense of robbery, and the punishment of each fixed at five years’ confinement in the State penitentiary.

Appellants filed a motion in arrest of judgment based on the insufficiency of the indictment to charge any offense against the laws of the State. Our statute under which this prosecution is brought makes it an offense to make an assault upon another, and by means of such assault, and by violence and putting in fear of life, etc., fraudulently taking from such person his property. Examining the indictment herein we find that same omits the allegation that the appellants took the property of the injured party by means of an assault; that part of the indictment appearing as follows: “did then and there unlawfully in and upon Antonio Barajas make an assault and then and there by said -fraudulently and against the will of the said Barajas, take from the person,” etc. Our Assistant Attorney General confesses error on the part of the State in the overruling of said motion in arrest of judgment, admitting said indictment to be defective in the particular mentioned, and for said error the judgment of the lower court will be reversed and the cause dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The appellants were convicted in the District Court of Brazoria County of the offense of robbery, and the punishment of each fixed at five years’ confinement in the State penitentiary.

Appellants filed a motion in arrest of judgment based on the insufficiency of the indictment to charge any offense against the laws of the State. Our statute under which this prosecution is brought makes it an offense to make an assault upon another, and by means of such assault, and by violence and putting in fear of life, etc., fraudulently taking from such person his property. Examining the indictment herein we find that same omits the allegation that the appellants took the property of the injured party by means of an assault; that part of the indictment appearing as follows: “did then and there unlawfully in and upon Antonio Barajas make an assault and then and there by said -fraudulently and against the will of the said Barajas, take from the person,” etc. Our Assistant Attorney General confesses error on the part of the State in the overruling of said motion in arrest of judgment, admitting said indictment to be defective in the particular mentioned, and for said error the judgment of the lower court will be reversed and the cause dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.W. 518, 89 Tex. Crim. 480, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoemake-and-rollins-v-state-texcrimapp-1921.