Farrell v. State, 16210.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 16210.,16210. |
| Citation | 66 S.W.2d 694 |
| Parties | FARRELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Collin County Court; J. F. Harrington, Judge.
Hunter T. Farrell was convicted for violating law inhibiting the introduction of Johnson Grass, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wm. M. Cramer, of Dallas, for appellant.
W. C. Dowdy, Co. Atty., and Leon O. Moses, Asst. Co. Atty., both of McKinney, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for violating the provisions of article 1359, P. C., inhibiting the introduction of Johnson Grass; punishment, a fine of $1,000.
Provision is made in article 418, C. C. P., for the substitution of a lost indictment or information. From the present record it appears that on the 14th day of April, 1933, the county attorney presented to the trial court a motion which contained an averment to the effect that on the 6th day of April, 1933, there had been legally presented against appellant a complaint and information charging him with the offense in question. It was also averred that the complaint and information had been lost or mislaid, and that the complaint and information attached to the motion were substantial copies of the instruments that had been lost. The court, on the hearing of the motion, ordered that the substitution be made. The order authorizing the substitution does not appear to have been entered upon the minutes of the court. We find in the transcript an order of substitution and the suggestion of the county attorney, with the certificate of the clerk to the effect that said instruments were filed on April 14, 1933. Under the statute (article 418, supra), and the decisions of this court, the record must show that the suggestion to substitute had been presented in open court, and that there had been spread on the minutes of the court the court's order that the instrument presented be substituted for the original and lost complaint and information. See Morris v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 337, 257 S. W. 899; Carter v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 58 S. W. 80; Burrage v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 44 S. W. 169.
The opinion is expressed that the court should have submitted to the jury the question as to whether the witness Mrs. R. L. Farrell was an accomplice. The state contends that the special charge on the subject is not sufficiently authenticated to present the matter for review. We pretermit a discussion of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrillo v. State
...State, 117 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)(indictment lost during trial and no substitution called for reversal); Farrell v. State, 66 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)(record must show suggestion to substitute presented in open court and court's order for substitution on minutes of court......
-
State v. Dotson
...record contains neither an original indictment nor shows proper substitution, then the conviction must be reversed); Farrell v. State, 125 Tex.Crim. 96, 66 S.W.2d 694 (1934) (articulating that the record must reflect that a request to substitute has been made in open court and that an order......
-
Evans v. State, 19479.
...All the proceedings with reference to this matter seem to have been in keeping with article 418, C.C.P. See, also, Farrell v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 66 S.W.2d 694. It appears that the order of substitution was duly made and entered upon the minutes of the court. The statute does not requi......
- Allen v. State, 16176.