Dellinger v. State
Decision Date | 26 February 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 13042.,13042. |
Citation | 28 S.W.2d 537 |
Parties | DELLINGER v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallam County; Reese Tatum, Judge.
Bert Dellinger was convicted of the offense of assaulting another in concert with others, while defendant and his companions were masked, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Moore & Wilson, of Amarillo, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of assaulting Adolpho Esqubiel, in concert with two others, while he (appellant) and his companions were masked. The punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty-five years.
Adolpho Esqubiel was in his home at night when appellant and two companions, with masks covering their faces, forcibly entered the room in which he, his wife, and small children were asleep. Appellant shot at Esqubiel with a pistol, and he and his companions beat him, dragged him from his family, and carried him into the state of New Mexico, where they imprisoned him in the home of a Mexican. Responding to a summons by the grand jury, Esqubiel had, prior to the assault, testified that appellant had sold him intoxicating liquor. At the time of the assault an indictment was pending against appellant charging him with the offense of selling intoxicating liquor to Esqubiel. The purpose of the imprisonment of the injured party was to remove him from the jurisdiction of the court in order that he might not appear against appellant as a witness. All of the foregoing facts were uncontroverted.
Section 5 of chapter 63 of the Acts of the Thirty-ninth Legislature, Regular Session (Vernon's Ann. P. C. art. 454e), reads as follows:
It was under the foregoing provision that the indictment was drawn. It is appellant's contention that the statute above set out is inoperative as being in contravention of section 35 of article 3 of the Constitution of Texas, his position being that the act contains more than one subject. He asserts that the controlling or dominant subject-matter of the act is the regulation and prohibiting of secret masked societies and organizations, as indicated by the title, and that section 5, under which the prosecution herein proceeded, has no legitimate relation to or connection with said subject. The caption of the act (Acts 1925, c. 63) reads as follows:
A liberal construction will be applied in determining whether or not a statute violates section 35 of article 3 of our Constitution, and, where the provisions are germane in any degree, the law will be upheld. Mercer v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 657, 13 S.W.(2d) 689; Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 225 S. W. 532. The word "subject" is used in the same sense as the word "object" in former Constitutions. Fielder v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 184, 49 S. W. 376. The word "object" under former Constitutions was construed by the courts to mean "end" or "purpose." Mercer v. State, supra, and authorities cited.
The object and purpose of the act is to prohibit the commission of the acts described therein while the offender is masked. Such object is fairly indicated by the title. The opinion is expressed that an application of the principles controlling renders untenable appellant's contention.
Appellant contends that section 5 offends against the provisions of article 6 of our Penal Code, his position being that the mask or disguise is not described by any standard that is certain. The indictment alleges that appellant and his companions were masked and in disguise. In Anderson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 21 S.W.(2d) 499, we upheld that part of section 3 of the act (Vernon's Ann. P. C. 454c) which denounces as an offense the disturbance of the inhabitants of a private residence by a masked person, and said that the term "masked" has a well-defined and commonly understood meaning. Giving effect to such holding, we are of the opinion that that part of the statute which denounces an assault or false imprisonment while the offenders are masked definitely and clearly defines an offense. It is unnecessary to express an opinion as to the validity of the remainder of the section. The indictment charges that the offense was committed by the parties while they were masked, and the proof supports the allegation.
The indictment charged that "Bert Dellinger, acting in concert with Oral Dellinger and Bill Cullender, and aiding and abetting each other when they the said Bert Dellinger Oral Dellinger and Bill Cullender were masked and in disguise did then and there unlawfully assault and falsely imprison one Adolpho Esqubiel and did then and there strike and beat and shoot the said Adolpho Esqubiel with a pistol, and did wilfully detain the said Adolpho Esqubiel against his consent and without authority of law, and did then and there commit an assault upon the person of the said Adolpho Esqubiel and by said assault and by actual violence to the person of said Adolpho Esqubiel, and by threats, did wilfully detain and restrain the said Adolpho Esqubiel from removing from one place to another as the said Adolpho Esqubiel might see proper." In his motion to quash, appellant averred that the indictment was duplicitous, in that two offenses were joined in the same count.
A duplicitous indictment is not necessarily fundamentally defective. The accused may waive all right to complain of such defect. Melley v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 248 S. W. 367. An inspection of the indictment discloses that it is sufficient to charge an offense. We find no bill of exception in the record bringing forward complaint of the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to quassh. In one part of the transcript we find the motion to quash. In another part is an order overruling the motion to quash. This order is not authenticated by the trial judge. There is no notation on the motion to quash over the signature of the trial judge that the motion was overruled and that appellant excepted. It is the rule that the overruling of a motion to quash the indictment is not reviewable, unless preserved by a bill of exception, further than to determine whether the indictment charges an offense. Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 209; Stewart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 299 S. W. 646; Hubbard v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 672, 298 S. W. 893; Bailey v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 275 S. W. 1014; Parroccini v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 320, 234 S. W. 671. The unauthenticated order overruling the motion is not a bill of exception. We quote from Branch's Annotated Penal Code of Texas, § 207, as follows: "A Bill of Exceptions should be made so full and certain in its statements as that, in and of itself, it will disclose all that is necessary to manifest the supposed error." See Buchanan v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 298 S. W. 569.
Appellant contends that one of the masked parties was not sufficiently identified. The matter is immaterial. We quote from Wilkirson v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 247, 296 S. W. 558, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skillern v. State
...be applied in determining whether a statute violates the constitution by containing more than one subject. Dellinger v. State, 115 Tex.Crim. 480, 28 S.W.2d 537, 539 (App.1930); Babcock v. State, 668 S.W.2d 857, 862 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bass v. State, 666 S.W.2d 113, 1......
-
Gulf Ins. Co. v. James
...County, Tex.Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 163; Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tex. 532, 101 S.W. 1080; Dellinger v. State, 115 Tex.Cr. R. 480, 28 S.W.2d 537; Davis v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 225 S.W. 532; Board of Insurance Commissioners v. Sproles Motor Freight Lines, Tex.Civ.A......
-
Central Ed. Agency v. Independent School Dist. of City of El Paso
...County, Tex.Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 163; Doeppenschmidt v. International & G. N. R. Co., 100 Tex. 532, 101 S.W. 1080; Dellinger v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 480, 28 S.W.2d 537; Davis v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 183, 225 S.W. 532; 39 Tex.Jur. 91, Sec. 43. 'It would be burdensome if not intolerable to requ......
-
Ex parte Jones
...will be upheld on single-subject rule “if [a provision] has any logical relationship to the general subject”); Dellinger v. State, 115 Tex.Crim. 480, 28 S.W.2d 537, 539 (1930) (“A liberal construction will be applied in determining whether or not a statute violates Section 35 ... and, where......