Ford v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10559.) |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 265 |
| Parties | FORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nolan County; W. P. Leslie, Judge.
George Ford was convicted for the unlawful possession of equipment for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. E. Ponder, of Sweetwater, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Nolan county for the unlawful possession of equipment for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that the statement of facts and bills of exception were filed more than 90 days after notice of appeal was given, contrary to article 760, C. C. P. 1925, and for that reason we are unauthorized to consider same. Bailey v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 150, 282 S. W. 804.
The indictment being regular and no fundamental error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
On Motion for Rehearing.
The sufficiency of the indictment is attacked upon the ground that it was indefinite. This is the language used:
"Did then and there unlawfully possess equipment for the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication, to wit, whisky."
Appellant, through his counsel, presents an interesting argument, showing thought and research, insisting that the indictment offends against the Bill of Rights embraced in article 1, § 10, of the Constitution, wherein it is said that:
"In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have * * * the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; * * * and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury."
The word "indictment" had a well-defined meaning at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. It required a statement of the essential acts or omissions which constitute the offense with which the party is accused. All that is essential to constitute the offense must be explicitly charged and cannot be aided by intendment. The mere statement of a legal result or a conclusion of law will not be sufficient. The facts constituting the crime must be set forth so that the conclusions of law may be arrived at from the facts so stated. See Rodriguez v. State, 12 Tex. App. 552; Hewitt v. State, 25 Tex. 722. Nine requisites of an indictment are set out in the statute, article 396, C. C. P. 1925. The seventh item reads thus: "The offense must be set forth in plain and intelligible words." This means more than that the accused must be charged in general terms with the commission of some crime. The indictment must particularize the acts or omissions complained of so that the identity cannot be mistaken. Alexander v. State, 27 Tex. App. 95, 10 S. W. 764. The elements of the offense should be so averred as to apprise the accused of the charge against him and to enable him to plead a judgment in bar of another prosecution for the same act. Jennings v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 639, 229 S. W. 925. The law does not require minuteness of detail, but demands only that the particular offense be set out with such certainty that a presumptively innocent man seeking to know what he must meet may ascertain fully therefrom the matters charged against him. Harden v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 220, 211 S. W. 233, 4 A. L. R. 1308; Stanford v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 268 S. W. 161. Generally speaking, it is sufficient to describe the offense as it is described in the statute. Burch v. The Republic, 1 Tex. 608; Michie's Encyc. Digest of Tex. Rep. vol. 4, p. 311, and precedents collated. To this rule, however, there are many exceptions. Todd v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 229 S. W. 515; Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. § 494, and cases collated. If the language of the statute is itself completely descriptive of the offense, the indictment will be sufficient if it follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. State
...comport with the law, they would be nothing other than conclusions of law; that is, statements of what the law is. Ford v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. 626, 2 S.W.2d 265, 266 (1927) (defining a conclusion of law). And, as we know, statements tantamount to conclusions of law are not probative eviden......
-
State v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co.
...innocent man seeking to know what he must meet may ascertain fully therefrom the matters charged against him.' Ford v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 2 S.W.2d 265, 266. Art. 405 provides an indictment shall be sufficient if it charges the commission of an offense in ordinary and concise language......
-
Bassett v. State
...be set forth so that the conclusions of law may be arrived at from the facts so stated. Articles 396 and 397, C. C. P.; Ford v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 2 S.W.2d 265. While the law does not require minuteness of detail, it demands that the particular offense be set out with such certainty ......
-
Ray v. State, 24292.
...constituting the crime must be set forth so that the conclusions of law may be arrived at from the facts so stated." Ford v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 2 S.W.2d 265, 266; Jones v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 38 S.W.2d These fundamental principles were announced by our own Court in construing i......