Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1903 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 859 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Dallas County Court; Ed. S. Lauderdale, Judge.
John T. Edwards was convicted of counterfeiting a trade-mark, and appeals. Reversed.
A. E. Firmin, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was jointly charged by information with W. H. Wood for counterfeiting and unlawfully using a trade-mark, in violation of articles 918d and 918e of White's Ann. Pen. Code. Appellant urges various objections to the information, but, after a careful examination of the same, in our opinion it is correct. Upon the trial the jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find W. H. Woods and John T. Edwards, defendants, guilty as charged in indictment, and assess their fine at seventy-five dollars." Defendant Wood was granted a new trial, and the judgment was entered against appellant, Edwards, for the full sum of $75. The verdict should have been several, and not joint. We cannot ascertain from the verdict whether the jury intended to find each of the defendants $75, or fine them jointly $75. The law does not authorize such a verdict, and it does not support a valid judgment. Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83, 9 S. W. 62; Whitcomb v. State, 30 Tex. App. 269, 17 S. W. 258. This being a misdemeanor, the decisions of this court are that the verdict must be several, and not joint, where two defendants are tried. However, in a felony case, where we can reasonably ascertain the verdict of the jury, the rule is different. Davidson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 365. In a misdemeanor case, where the fine is against two defendants, as stated, we cannot tell whether the jury intended to render a joint verdict against each, or whether it intended said fine to be several.
There being no valid verdict, such as the law authorizes, and requires, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. State
...uncertainty. It is a joint verdict, and not a separate verdict against each defendant. The objections are well taken. Edwards v. State, 75 S. W. 859, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 1004; Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83, 9 S. W. 62; Whitcomb v. State, 30 Tex. App. 269, 17 S. W. Because of the uncertai......
-
Davidson v. State, 18497.
...the verdict should have fixed the fine of each of the appellants separately. The exact point is discussed and decided in Edwards v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 75 S.W. 859, and the principle is referred to in 42 Tex.Jur. p. For the errors mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. ...
-
Grayson v. State, 24061.
...the punishment assessed was joint or several. Such a verdict is invalid in a misdemeanor case, such as is here presented. Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 75 S.W. 859; Davidson v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 97 S.W.2d 698, 42 Tex.Jur., p. 469, Sec. For the error in the verdict, the judgment is ......