Kachel v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8211.) |
| Parties | KACHEL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Polk County Court; E. T. Murphy, Judge.
Roy Kachel was convicted of wife desertion, and he appeals. Reversed and information dismissed.
Z. L. Foreman and F. Campbell, both of Livingston, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., of Devine, for the State.
Conviction is for wife desertion. Punishment, fine of $250 and 90 days in jail.
The prosecution was by complaint and information. The complaint was made on July 16, 1923, and it and the information were filed on that date. The complaint alleges that on February 2, 1923, appellant deserted his wife, "who is in destitute and necessitous circumstances." The information follows the complaint with the same allegation of present destitution. Motion to quash was filed based upon the ground that the pleading of the state alleged only the destitute circumstances of the wife at the time of instituting the prosecution, whereas her status in that respect at the time of the alleged desertion was the controlling issue. We are of opinion appellant's contention is correct, and that the court should have sustained the motion to quash. In Cox v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 49, 205 S. W. 131, the question of vagrancy was discussed as presenting the issue of the present rather than the past status of accused. The same issue is here involved, except that here it is the past status of the wife relative to being in destitute circumstances at the time of the alleged desertion, and not her present status in that regard. A man might desert his wife leaving her well supplied with all the money and comforts necessary, and yet some time within the period of limitation for some reason not attributable to him she might become destitute, but in such case we do not believe a prosecution for desertion could be maintained. O'Brien v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 234 S. W. 668, and Bobo v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 397, 235 S. W. 878, are authority for the proposition that under the statute in question (article 640a, Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code 1916) a man might be guilty of willfully refusing to provide for the support of his wife although he had not deserted her. But that issue is not in the present case. If appellant is guilty, it was because of a deserton at a time when his wife was in necessitous circumstances. In Sikes v. State, 67 Ala. 77, an indictment was held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purvis v. State
...S. W. 240; Hollingsworth v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 189 S. W. 488; James v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 190, 49 S. W. 401; Kachel v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 256 S. W. 263. W. H. Matthews exhibited before the jury two empty shells from a 30-30 rifle and a bullet which he said had killed Dr. O......
-
Johnson v. State
...supported by his action in going to Wichita Falls that night. Terrell v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 228 S. W. 240; Kachel v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 256 S. W. 263; Hollingsworth v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 189 S. W. 488. As said, in substance, by this court in Conner v. State, 23 Tex. A......
-
Musser v. State
...because otherwise the accused would be at the mercy of any letter writer whose name or address he did not know." In Kachel v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 256 S.W. 263, Judge Hawkins, speaking for the court, used language as follows: "In the event of further prosecution we call attention to a qu......