State v. Elmore
This text of 44 Tex. 102 (State v. Elmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The objections urged to the indictment in this case are not tenable. No good reason is shown why the indictment is not good. The party said to have been assaulted is described as “ one-, a freedman, whose name is to the grand jurors unknown.”
We think it sufficiently appears that the assault was made upon a person, and if his name was not known to the grand jury it was competent to describe the party as is done in this case.
It may he said that the name is necessary to enable the defendant to plead the judgment in bar to another prosecution. To this it may he answered that indictments are not required, especially in misdemeanor cases, to be so minute as to dispense with other proof in pleading former conviction and acquittal. (Cochran v. The State, 26 Tex., 678; [103]*103Prior v. The State, 4 Tex., 383; Phillips v. The State, 29 Tex., 235.)
The court erred in setting the indictment aside, and the judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 Tex. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-elmore-tex-1875.