Holden v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1903 |
| Citation | 71 S.W. 600 |
| Parties | HOLDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Chas. F. Clint, Judge.
Lottie Holden was convicted of theft from the person, and she appeals. Reversed.
Thomas & Spellman, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of theft from the person, and her punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.
The first question presented for our consideration is the refusal of the court to have defendant served with a copy of the indictment two days before she was brought to trial. The bill shows that at the time of the presentation of the indictment by the grand jury against appellant she was in custody. She continued in custody until the 25th of September, on which date she gave bond and was released. This was about 2:30 o'clock p. m. of said date. Thereafter, on the night of said day, defendant was rearrested and confined in jail, where she has since been. The case was set down for trial on the following day, September 26th. When the case was called defendant objected to making any announcement or going to trial, because she had not been served with copy of the indictment, and then demanded and requested that she be served with copy thereof, which objection was by the court overruled. Defendant then made the further objection that there had been no regular jury drawn for the week, and objected to going to trial by a picked-up jury. The court thereupon postponed the trial until the 29th of September. On said day the case was again called for trial, and defendant again interposed the objection that she had not been served with copy of the indictment, and again requested that she be served with a copy. This objection was by the court overruled and refused, and defendant forced to go to trial without having at any time a copy of said indictment served upon or delivered to her, and without ever having waived such service or delivery. We understand the statute on this subject (articles 540, 541, Code Cr. Proc.) to be mandatory; and, as indicated by a succeeding statute (article 567, Code Cr. Proc.), the object of this was to afford defendant the opportunity to examine the case in order to file written pleadings. Article 540, supra, requires the court in every case of felony, when the accused is in custody, etc., to have the clerk, when the indictment is presented, make out a certified copy of the same and deliver it to the sheriff, who is required to serve the same on defendant. Article 542 provides that it is not necessary to serve defendant with a copy of the indictment when he is on bail at the time the indictment is presented, but it also authorizes a copy of the indictment to be served when requested by defendant or his counsel. Articles 567 and 568 indicate that the purpose of this service of a copy of the indictment was to allow two entire days after the arrest of defendant, and after service of copy of the indictment, in which to prepare and file written pleadings. Article 546 provides that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brasfield v. State
... ... Insofar as the jury learned from the testimony given, Goss may have become acquainted with appellant as fellow members of a church, bowling team, or social club ... Nor are we persuaded by appellant's reliance upon Holden v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 382, 71 S.W. 600, 601 (1903). Goss gave no incriminating evidence against his client; he simply testified to a single circumstance appellant's presence in a large city upon a particular day and hour ... In Church v. State, 552 S.W.2d 138, 142 ... ...
-
Rice v. State
...Proc. 1895, have been construed by this court in a number of cases. Evans v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 32, 35 S. W. 169; Holden v. State, 71 S. W. 600, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 483; Scoville v. State, 77 S. W. 792, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 884; Brewin v. State, 85 S. W. 1140, 12 Tex. Ct. Rep. 663. These and othe......
-
Young v. State
...that a conviction may not be sustained where no copy of the indictment is served on the accused. Appellant relies on Holden v. State, 44 Tex.Crim. 382, 71 S.W. 600 (1903), and Johnson v. State, 567 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), for the proposition that service upon a defendant in custody is......
-
Wray v. State
... ... State, 218 S. W. 1044, in which a like conclusion is reached. In neither of these cases was either the appellant or his ... counsel in possession of a certified copy of the indictment, and the same is true in the Brewin Case, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 85 S. W. 1140, and Holden's Case, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 382, 71 S. W. 600. In these cases the mandatory character of the statute is recognized, the object being "to afford the accused the opportunity of examining the indictment in order to file written pleadings"; but in them it is also recognized that the neglect or failure to ... ...