Brown v. State, 28496
| Decision Date | 24 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28496,28496 |
| Citation | 163 Tex.Crim. 527,294 S.W.2d 722 |
| Parties | William George BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
William G. Brown, San Antonio, for appellant.
Terry L. Jacks, County Atty., San Marcos, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This prosecution arose in the justice court, and upon appeal to the county court appellant was convicted of a violation of the speed laws of this state, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200.
The jurat to the complaint reads as follows:
'Sworn to and subscribed by R. B. Christian, a credible person, before on or about the 11 day of Oct. A.D. 1955.'
The attack thereon is twofold: (a) There is no certain date on which the affidavit was made, the term 'before on or about' being vague and indefinite, and (b) the officer before whom the affidavit is alleged to have been made does not certify that it was made before 'me.'
One of the elements necessary to constitute a valid jurat to a complaint is that it be shown that it was sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before the officer administering the oath.
In Carpenter v. State, 218 S.W.2d 207, 208, this court reannounced the holding in Robertson v. State, 25 Tex.App. 529, 8 S.W. 659, that 'A jurat is the certificate of the officer before whom the complaint is made, stating that the same was sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before him * * *.'
In order to be sufficient, the jurat must be dated. Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 66 S.W.2d 695.
Here, the date of the jurat is 'before on on about the 11 day of Oct. A.D. 1955.' The term 'before on or about' is indefinite.
The defective jurat vitiates the complaint.
For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heredia v. State
...the undated jurat on the affidavit vitiates the complaint. In order to be sufficient, the jurat must be dated. See Brown v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 527, 294 S.W.2d 722; Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 66 S.W.2d The inadequacy of the affidavit to support the search warrant rendered the evidence ......
-
Rendon v. State, s. 13-84-196-C
...16, 1981 is almost two years anterior to the filing of the complaint and information. Appellant's reliance upon Brown v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 527, 294 S.W.2d 722 (1956) is misplaced. There, the complaint, which was held to be invalid, was not shown to have been sworn to before the officer a......
-
Shackelford v. State, 48685
...vitiates the complaint. Article 2.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 66 S.W.2d 695 (1933); Brown v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.App. 527, 294 S.W.2d 722 (1956); and see also Heredia v. State, 468 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Since there can be no valid information in the absence......
-
Charging Instruments
...jurat: • Fails to show that it has been sworn to and subscribed by the a൶ant before the o൶cer administering the oath. [ Brown v. State , 294 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956).] However, the omission of the word “by” preceding the name of the a൶ant does not void the complaint. [ Malone v. Stat......
-
Charging Instruments
...jurat: • Fails to show that it has been sworn to and subscribed by the a൶ant before the o൶cer administering the oath. [ Brown v. State , 294 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956).] However, the omission of the word “by” preceding the name of the a൶ant does not void the complaint. [ Malone v. Stat......
-
Charging Instruments
...• Fails to show that it has been sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before the officer administering the oath. [ Brown v. State , 294 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956).] However, the omission of the word “by” preceding the name of the affiant does not void the complaint. [ Malone v. State......
-
Charging Instruments
...jurat: • Fails to show that it has been sworn to and subscribed by the a൶ant before the o൶cer administering the oath. [ Brown v. State , 294 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956).] However, the omission of the word “by” preceding the name of the a൶ant does not void the complaint. [ Malone v. Stat......