Lightfoot v. State

Decision Date09 December 1903
Citation77 S.W. 792
PartiesLIGHTFOOT v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; E. B. Muse, Judge.

Charlie Lightfoot was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed.

Thomas & Spellman, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of three years.

Appellant assigns as error the action of the court forcing him to trial without being served with a true copy of the indictment. The bill of exceptions shows that appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary, alleged to have been committed on the 8th day of October, 1901. A paper purporting to be a true copy of the indictment was served on him, which alleged that the offense was committed on the 8th day of October, 1903—an impossible date, being subsequent to the trial. Appellant claimed that this was not a true copy of the indictment against him, and he requested a true copy to be served on him, and refused to plead to the indictment until such service should be made. It is further shown that after his arrest he had been continuously in jail until the case was called for trial, and at no time had he been served or in any manner waived service of a true copy of said indictment. The court refused the request, and compelled appellant to proceed with the trial without having been served with and without having waived a true copy of said indictment. To this action of the court appellant reserved his exceptions. The Constitution of this state (see Bill of Rights, § 10) among other things says: "And defendant shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof." In pursuance of this, our Legislature has enacted article 540, Code Cr. Proc. 1895, as follows: "In every case of felony, when the accused is in custody, or as soon as he may be arrested, it shall be the duty of the clerk, where an indictment has been presented, to immediately make out a certified copy of the same and deliver such copy to the sheriff, together with a writ directed to said sheriff commanding him to forthwith deliver such certified copy to the defendant." Article 541, Code Cr. Proc. 1895, requires the sheriff to serve this copy and make the return thereof. Article 542 authorizes defendant, when on bail, to have a copy of the indictment delivered to him at his request. Articles 567, 568, 569, Code Cr. Proc. 1895, authorize a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 1932
    ...shows no reversible error. Johnson v. State, 4 Tex. App. 268; Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. App. 143, 15 S. W. 408; Lightfoot v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 792, 793. Appellant also contends in his brief that he was convicted and sentenced for two offenses at the same trial. Appellant was cha......
  • Scoville v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 9 Diciembre 1903

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT