Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Citation | 29 Tex. 495 |
| Parties | S. ALEXANDER v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Article 395 of the code of criminal procedure declares, that an indictment must describe the offense in plain and intelligible words. Pas. Dig. art. 2863, div. 7. This means, that the accused must be charged to have done some act which violates a law, and the particular facts must be set out with certainty.
The certainty required in an indictment is such as will enable the accused to plead the judgment that might be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense. Pas. Dig. art. 2865, note 722.
It is not sufficient to aver that the defendant did sell liquors in quantities less than a quart, without obtaining a license therefor; but it must be stated at whose house or establishment, or to whom the vending took place, or some other fact tending to identify the transaction. Pas. Dig. art. 2075, note 654; 23 Tex. 232.
APPEAL from Fayette. The case was tried before Hon. GEORGE W. SMITH, one of the district judges.
The indictment charged that S. Alexander, etc., etc., “did sell spirituous liquors in less quantities than one quart, without then and there having a license to do so.” The defendant moved to quash the indictment, which motion was overruled, and the defendant was convicted and appealed. As the case turned upon the sufficiency of the indictment, it is useless to further notice the record.
F. L. Price, for the appellant, argued the case upon the merits.
M. D. Graham, Attorney General, filed a brief for the state.
The exception to the indictment, because it does not allege to whom the liquor was sold, ought to have been sustained by the court below. One of the requisites of an indictment is, that “the offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words.” This does not mean merely that the indictment must allege that the party accused has done some act which is an offense against the laws, nor does it mean that it is enough to say in an indictment that the accused committed a murder, or an assault, or stole a horse, or the like. There must be some particularity, or what the law calls certainty, in an indictment. The particular act of which the state complains must be set forth in plain and intelligible words, so that the party who is accused may know what he will be called upon to answer, and may be able to prepare for his defense.
“The certainty required in an indictment is such as will enable the accused to plead the judgment that may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...necessary that the proof correspond with the allegation. This announcement was made by the Supreme Court of this state in Alexander v. State, 29 Tex. 495, from which a quotation is taken in the opinion by Judge HAWKINS. It has been repeatedly and uniformly announced in subsequent decisions.......
-
Fletcher v. State
...for the same offense. The information in this case is, in these respects, clearly and fatally defective." In the case of Alexander v. State, 29 Tex. 497, 498, it said: "In the case of Burch v. Republic, 1 Tex. 608, which was a case like the present, this court said: 'It is not sufficient to......
-
Northern v. State
...with Williams v. State, 1 Tex. App. 90, 28 Am.Rep. 399, and on up to the present time. See Paschal's Digest, Art. 2865; Alexander v. State, 29 Tex. 495; State v. Hanson, 23 Tex. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that were we to hold the present indictment insufficient in that the meth......
-
Rudy v. State
...the law is shown by the following authorities: State v. Campbell, 29 Tex. 44, 94 Am. Dec. 251; Horan v. State, 7 Tex. App. 183; Alexander v. State, 29 Tex. 495; Williams v. State, 1 Tex. App. 94, 28 Am. Rep. 399; Hoskey v. State, 9 Tex. App. 203; Kerry v. State, 17 Tex. App. 179, 50 Am. Rep......