Dill v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1895 |
| Citation | 33 S.W. 126 |
| Parties | DILL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Parker county; J. W. Patterson, Judge.
Steve Dill was convicted of conspiracy, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case contains two counts; the first for burglary, the second for conspiracy to commit the same burglary. Appellant was convicted for the conspiracy. After the state had closed its evidence, counsel for appellant moved the court to compel the district attorney to elect upon which count the state would prosecute. This motion was denied, and appellant excepted, reserving a bill. The evidence disclosed that the conspiracy or agreement was to commit the burglary charged in the first count. Now, while it is true that the offense called "conspiracy" was complete when the positive agreement was made between appellant and W. D. Dill to commit the burglary, and it is also true that the burglary and the conspiracy to commit the same are distinct offenses, still they may constitute but one criminal transaction. Our statute (article 433, Code Cr. Proc.) provides that an indictment or information may contain as many counts charging the same offense as the attorney who prepares it may think necessary to insert. If the statute means when it says "the same offense" that the offenses must be technically the same, then theft and swindling cannot be inserted in the same indictment, in separate courts, nor can theft and receiving the stolen property, nor rape and incest, because, technically, they are separate and distinct offenses. We understand the meaning of the word "offense," as used in this statute, to be the same criminal transaction. This being so, the rule is that counts may be joined in the same indictment to meet the various aspects in which the evidence may present itself. And if it appears, after the case of the state is presented on the trial of the prisoner, that there is no more than one criminal transaction involved, the court will not restrict the prosecution to particular counts. People v. Austin, 1 Parker, Cr. R. 154. Of course, the rule that the court shall give in charge to the jury the law applicable to the case would restrict the court (if there was no evidence tending to support a count or counts) to that count or counts which have support in the evidence.
There was an examination into this criminal transaction before a justice of the peace. The appellant was asked if he desired to make a statement. He answered that he did not. After the testimony for the state was in, the justice asked the appellant if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State
...State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 25 S. W. 426, 40 Am. St. Rep. 795; Pisano v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 29 S. W. 42; Dill v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 33 S. W. 126, 60 Am. St. Rep. 37; Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 40 S. W. 287; Martinez v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 586, 103 S. W. 930; Robinso......
-
Drake v. State
...29 S.W. 160, 161 (1895). Shortly, however, the Court resumed judicially glossing article 433 with common law rules. In Dill v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 240, 33 S.W. 126 (1895), the indictment alleged in separate counts burglary and conspiracy to commit the same burglary, respectively. After the ......
-
Kunkle v. State
...by unlawful means. Thus, the offense of conspiracy is complete as soon as the criminal agreement is entered into. Dill v. State, 35 Tex.Cr. 240, 33 S.W. 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1895); Witt v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 177 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1944). In order to agree to an object of a conspiracy,......
-
Carrion v. State
...State, 156 Tex.Crim. 631, 245 S.W.2d 257 (App.1952); Hardie v. State, 140 Tex.Crim. 368, 144 S.W.2d 571 (App.1940); Dill v. State, 35 Tex.Crim. 240, 33 S.W. 126 (App.1895); United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Robertson, 659 F.2d 652, reh. denied, 665 F.2d 3......