Wright v. State

35 S.W. 150, 37 Tex. Crim. 3, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 15, 1896·No. No. 794.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for a violation of the local option law. Appellant assigns several errors, three of which are *4 noticed by the Assistant Attorney-General in his brief. As the record is presented to us, there is a fatal defect in the information, which requires a reversal of the judgment. This has been overlooked in the-presentation of the case by counsel. The defect in the information mentioned is that it fails to conclude “against the peace and dignity of the State.” Article 5, § 12, of the State Constitution, provides, among-other things, “that all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Texas, and shall conclude, ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’” This information should have concluded “against the peace and dignity of the State.” This is an express mandatory provision of the Constitution. There is no suggestion in the record or to this court that this is an omission by the clerk in transcribing said information into the record, and no certiorari is requested. The judgment is reversed, and the cause ordered dismissed.

Reversed and Dismissed.

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

Wright v. State, 35 S.W. 150, 37 Tex. Crim. 3, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. 1896).

35 S.W. 150 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moye v. State
220 S.W.2d 651 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Stork v. State
23 S.W.2d 733 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Reynolds v. Commonwealth
112 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1922)
Pilgrim v. State
219 S.W. 451 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Norwood v. Snell
68 S.W. 773 (Texas Supreme Court, 1902)