Stokes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Stokes v. State

33 S.W. 850, 35 Tex. Crim. 279, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 274

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 11, 1895

DocketNo. 1248.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 S.W. 850 (Stokes 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

Stokes v. State, 33 S.W. 850, 35 Tex. Crim. 279, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 274 (Tex. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of a steer, and punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. A bill of indictment had been presented against appellant and others. In that bill Peter Stokes’ name was omitted. The prosecution, desiring to charge Peter with the theft with the other defendants, procured a second bill. A capias was issued upon this last bill, and appellant was arrested and placed in jail. When the case was called for trial he objected to being required to announce, contending that he was entitled to a copy *280 of the second hill,—the bill upon which he was tried in this case. This was denied him. In this there was error. The accused, under the circumstances above enumerated, is entitled to a copy of the indictment upon which he is charged. This is not an open question. Harris v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 279; Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. Crim. App., 143; Woodall v. State, 25 Tex Crim. App., 617. The bill of exceptions in regard to the proof that a certain hide found in the cabin was similar to the hide which came off the animal in dispute, is not sufficiently specific. From the bill of exceptions, it appears that the opinion of the witness, and not the description, was sought. If the bill had been more specific in describing the hide found in the house, then this, in connection with the opportunity of Johnson, and the fact that he conducted the officer to the head of the animal, where buried, would have authorized this proof. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of a steer, and punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. A bill of indictment had been presented against appellant and others. In that bill Peter Stokes’ name was omitted. The prosecution, desiring to charge Peter with the theft with the other defendants, procured a second bill. A capias was issued upon this last bill, and appellant was arrested and placed in jail. When the case was called for trial he objected to being required to announce, contending that he was entitled to a copy *280 of the second hill,—the bill upon which he was tried in this case. This was denied him. In this there was error. The accused, under the circumstances above enumerated, is entitled to a copy of the indictment upon which he is charged. This is not an open question. Harris v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 279; Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. Crim. App., 143; Woodall v. State, 25 Tex Crim. App., 617. The bill of exceptions in regard to the proof that a certain hide found in the cabin was similar to the hide which came off the animal in dispute, is not sufficiently specific. From the bill of exceptions, it appears that the opinion of the witness, and not the description, was sought. If the bill had been more specific in describing the hide found in the house, then this, in connection with the opportunity of Johnson, and the fact that he conducted the officer to the head of the animal, where buried, would have authorized this proof. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.W. 850, 35 Tex. Crim. 279, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-state-texcrimapp-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack