Hanson v. State

• Decision Date: 21 February 1901
• Citation: 61 S.W. 120
• Parties: HANSON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

61 S.W. 120

HANSON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 21, 1901.

Appeal from Erath county court; L. N. Frank, Judge.

John Hanson was convicted of false imprisonment, and he appeals. Reversed.

J. E. Sanders and Daniel & Keith, for appellant. D. E. Simmons, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of false imprisonment, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $10.

Appellant insists, by motion to quash, that there is a variance between the complaint and information. The charging part of the complaint is as follows: "* * * On or about the 13th day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, in the said county of Erath and state of Texas, one John Hanson, late of said county and state, with force and arms, and before making this affidavit, did then and there in and upon Hunter Williams make an assault, and did then and there, by means of threats, willfully, and without authority of law, and against the consent of the said Hunter Williams, detain the said Hunter Williams, thereby restraining the said Hunter Williams from removing from one place to another as he might see proper," etc. The charging part of the information is as follows: "* * * That John Hanson, in the county of Erath and state of Texas, on or about the 13th day of January, A. D. 1900, and before the filing of this information, did then and there unlawfully in and upon Hunter Williams make an assault, and, without lawful authority therefor, did then and there forcibly confine and falsely imprison the said Hunter Williams, and did then and there willfully and by assault, and by actual violence and by threats, detain him, the said Hunter Williams, against his consent, and did thereby restrain him, the said Hunter Williams, while so unlawfully detained, from moving from one place to another as the said Hunter Williams might see proper," etc. We think the motion to quash was well taken, and should have been sustained. The information must, in substance, charge the same offense as that alleged in the complaint, and a want of conformity in the charges vitiates the information. Robinson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 111, 7 S. W. 531; Collins v. State, 5 Tex. App. 37. And, for collation of authorities, see White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. § 396. The complaint is valid, and it is only necessary for the information to conform to the complaint. The county attorney can file a new information upon the complaint, and proceed with the...