Lee v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 15531.,15531. |
| Citation | 57 S.W.2d 123 |
| Parties | LEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Palo Pinto County; Sam M. Russell, Judge.
Albert Lee was convicted for perjury, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
John Moyers and J. R. Creighton, both of Mineral Wells, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for perjury; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.
Appellant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that same alleged that the grand jury, before whom the false testimony was given, was in session in "Palo Ponto" county, Tex., and that no such county existed; also that said indictment alleged that the offense then being investigated by the grand jury was committed in "Palo Poito" county, Tex., hence a grand jury of Palo Pinto county would have no jurisdiction. The bill of exception bringing forward this complaint exhibits neither the original nor a certified copy of the indictment. The indictment copied in the transcript, as a necessary part thereof, recites that "the grand jury, duly sworn and impaneled, in and for the county of Palo Pinto, at the October term, 1931, of the District Court, * * * upon their oaths present into said court that on October 30, 1931, * * * in the county and state aforesaid, Albert Lee * * * before the duly organized grand jury for said county, * * * in session at the October term, 1931, of the District Court of Palo Pinto county, was a witness, * * * and it was a material inquiry before said grand jury * * * whether in said county and state one Lono Lee did make an assault * * * and whether said Lono Lee was present at * * * and said Albert Lee did, in said county and state, before said grand jury * * * testify that said Lono Lee did not assault said Southern, and was not present at said school house on the day and date mentioned; which said testimony was in substance and effect `That on the 29th day of October, 1931, the said Lono Lee did not assault the said Southern in "Palo Poito" county,' which said statement was `false, * * * when in truth and in fact the said Lono Lee did on said date make an assault on said Southern in Palo Pinto County, Texas, and was present at said school house,'" etc.
It is perfectly clear that the use of the word "Poito," as and when stated above, was either an error in spelling or a typographical error, which did not mislead, misinform, or in any way operate to the hurt or prejudice of appellant's case. Harden v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 220, 211 S. W. 233, 4 A. L. R. 1308. See notes under article 412, Vernon's Ann. C. C. P.
If there was any question on this point, it is plain that, inasmuch as there was another ground of perjury laid, submitted, and proved, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to quash. See Holden v. State, 18 Tex. App. 91; Harvey v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 645, 244 S. W. 1004; Barber v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 142 S. W. 577; Robertson v. State, 68...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rosenbaum
...we are aware of, the materiality of the statements was a question of law to be determined by the court alone. E.g., Lee v. State, 123 Tex.Crim. 32, 57 S.W.2d 123 (App.1933) (no error for court to tell the jury in charge that alleged false testimony was material); Martin v. State, 101 Tex.Cr......
-
Yarbrough v. State
...(1893); Scott v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 11, 29 S.W. 274 (1895); Jones v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 398, 174 S.W. 1071 (1915); Lee v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 32, 57 S.W.2d 123 (1933). No fact issues were in controversy; the testimony of the grand jurors indicated that the appellant's false statement cou......
-
Smith v. State
...alleged to have been falsely made by the appellant 'were material to the inquiry and to the issue joined.' In Lee v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 32, 57 S.W.2d 123, 124, we '* * * so likewise the materiality of testimony assigned as perjury is a question of law for the court ordinarily, and, under ......