Craig v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 504 |
| Parties | CRAIG v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. F. Cunningham and E. J. Hamner, for appellant. Richd. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the county court under an indictment, certified to that court from the district court, charging him with drunkenness in office. Pen. Code, arts. 141, 144. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court was interposed by appellant on the theory that the offense charged involved official misconduct, and therefore could only be tried in the district court. Const. art. 5, § 8. Article 3388, Rev. St., provides that "all convictions by a petit jury of any county officers for any felony, or for any misdemeanor involving official misconduct, shall work an immediate removal from office of the officer so convicted; and such judgment of conviction shall, in every instance, embody within it an order removing such officer." Article 3393, Rev. St., declares that "by `official misconduct,' as used in this title with reference to county officers, is meant any unlawful behavior in relation to the duties of his office, willful in its character, of any officer intrusted in any manner with the administration of justice or the execution of the laws; and under this head of official misconduct are included any willful and corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him by law." Article 3397, Rev. St., is as follows: "By `drunkenness not amounting to habitual drunkenness,' as named in this chapter in connection with county officers, is meant the immoderate use of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors to such a degree as to incapacitate the officer for the time being or permanently from the discharge of the duties of his office." It is evident from the foregoing statutory provisions that "official misconduct" grows out of a willful or corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of the officer to perform a duty enjoined on him by law, or out of some willful or unlawful behavior on his part in relation to the duties of his office, while, on the other hand, drunkenness relates alone to his incapacity to discharge the duties of such office. One relates to willful or corrupt acts or omissions in relation to the duties of his office; the other, to a mental incapacity disabling him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talamantez v. State
...591-593 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) (dissenting opinion, at 594ff); Bolton v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 154 S.W. 1197 (1913); Craig v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 19 S.W. 504 (1892); Brackenridge v. State, 27 Tex.App. 513, 11 S.W. 630, at 633 At common law "misfeasance" and "malfeasance" in public office ......
-
State v. Hinds
...(Ohio Ct.App.1976)). Of course, not every offense committed by a public official involves official misconduct. See Craig v. Texas, 31 Tex.Crim. 29, 19 S.W. 504 (App.1892) (holding that drunkenness in office did not involve official misconduct); Hall v. Texas, 736 S.W.2d 818, 819-20 (Tex.Ct.......
-
Gallagher v. State
...any willful and corrupt failure, refusal, or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him by law." See Craig v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 19 S.W. 504 (1892). Conformably with the amendment to § 8, article 70 of the 1879 code of criminal procedure added such newly granted jurisdic......
-
Ex parte Lucas
... ... 29.03, supra ... The basis of the holding in Canady is this Court's decision in Mankin v. State, 451 S.W.2d 236. In Mankin, we held that the failure to describe the property allegedly taken rendered the indictment fundamentally defective. The ... ...