Caldwell v. State of Texas
Decision Date | 12 January 1891 |
Parties | CALDWELL v. STATE OF TEXAS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
William Caldwell was arraigned upon the following indictment found by the grand jury of Fort Bend county, Tex.:
The venue was subsequently changed to Harris county, Tex., and on trial of the case, upon Caldwell's plea of not guilty, before a jury duly impaneled, a verdict was found against him of guilty of murder in the flrst degree, and awarding the punishment of death. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict, from which an appeal was taken to the court of appeals of the state of Texas, which affirmed the judgment, the opinion being delivered by WILLSON, J., (Caldwell v. State, 28 Tex. App. 566, 14 S. W. Rep. 122.) Application for a rehearing was subsequently made, upon the ground that 'the indictment is fatally and fundamentally defective and void under the constitution of the state, and does not, either in form or substance, set out a valid charge of murder or any other offense known to the criminal law of the state, and is not due process of law under the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States.' This motion was heard on oral and printed arguments on both sides, and overruled. The opinion was delivered by HURT, J., (28 Tex. App. 576, 14 S. W. Rep. 124,) and stated that but one ground was urged for rehearing, namely, the sufficiency of the indictment, the objections to which were that it failed to charge that the accused murdered the deceased; that it omitted to charge the time and place of the alleged shooting; and the infliction of a mortal wound; and the date of the wounding and that of the death; and that the shooting was done unlawfully and with malice aforethought; and was fatally defective for want of certainty. The court held that as the indictment charged that Caldwell on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1888, in the county of Fort Bend, unlawfully, and with express malice aforethought, killed Shamblin by shooting him with a gun, it charged all of the acts constituting murder, and with the requisite particularity, and that consequently the indictment was sufficient; and said: A writ of error was sued out from this court, and allowed by the presiding judge of the court of appeals of Texas, and the case comes on upon a motion to dismiss.
Section 10, art. 1, of the constitution of Texas, reads: By article 605 of the Texas Penal Code, 'murder' is thus defined: Willson, Crim. St. Tex. pt. 1, p. 203. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Texas provides: 'Art. 419. An indictment is the written statement of a grand jury, accusing a person therein named of some act of omission which, by law, is declared to be an offense. Art. 420. An indictment shall be deemed sufficient if it has the following requisites: (1) It shall commence, 'In the name and by the authority of the state of Texas.' (2) It must appear therefrom that the same was presented in the district court of the county where the grand jury is in session. (3) It must appear to be the act of a grand jury of the proper county. (4) It must contain the name of the accused, or state that his name is unknown, and, in case his name is unknown, give a reasonably accurate description of him. (5) It must show that the place where the offense was committed is within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is presented. (6) The time...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey
...v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. ed. 678; Re Converse, 137 U. S. 624, 34 L. ed. 796, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191; Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 34 L. ed. 816, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 225, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577; Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. S. 314, 36 L. ed. ......
-
Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
...63 L.R.A. 471; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 111, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97. 6 Hurtado v. California, supra; Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 11 S.Ct. 224, 34 L.Ed. 816; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83, 20 S.Ct. 287, 44 L.Ed. 382; Barrington v. Missouri, 205 U.S. 483, 27 S.Ct. 582, 51 L......
-
Duane v. Merchants' Legal Stamp Co.
...Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394, 34 Sup. Ct. 779, 783(58 L. Ed. 363). The words of Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 693, 697,11 Sup. Ct. 224, 226 (34 L. Ed. 816) are these: ‘Law, in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process, and when s......
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
...139 U. S. 462, 11 Sup. Ct. 577, 35 L. Ed. 225;In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624, 11 Sup. Ct. 191, 34 L. Ed. 796;Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692, 11 Sup. Ct. 224, 34 L. Ed. 816;Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 14 Sup. Ct. 570, 38 L. Ed. 485. Persons or corporations cannot complain that they a......
-
Originalism and stare decisis.
...3 Mich. 615 (1855). (14.) See, e.g., THE FEDERALIST NO. 78 (Alexander Hamilton), supra note 10, at 487. (15.) E.g., Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 697 (1891) ("[N]o State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law. Law, in its regular......