Luna v. State
| Decision Date | 15 October 1902 |
| Citation | 70 S.W. 89 |
| Parties | LUNA v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Nacogdoches county court; V. E. Middlebrook, Judge.
Robert Luna was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of adultery, and fined $100.
The complaint alleges that "Bob Luna, a man, and Emma Colster, a woman, did unlawfully live together," etc. The information charges that "Bob Luna, a man, and Emma Colster, a woman, late of said county and state, with force and arms did then and there unlawfully live together, and have carnal intercourse with each other; the said Emma Colsten then and there lawfully married to another person then living," etc. Motion was filed in arrest of judgment because of variance in the name Colster and Colsten in the complaint and information. The court was correct in overruling this motion. Piland v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 47 S. W. 1007.
Appellant reserved a bill of exceptions to the following portion of the charge of the court: "As to the matter of the names Colston, Colster, Colson, and Colstn, as all of these ways of spelling have been before you, the matter for you to decide on this point is, if Bob Luna has been living in adultery with some woman, then is the woman with whom he has been cohabiting commonly known by these names, and is she the identical woman mentioned in the information." This charge is correct. Where a party is commonly known by one name, and that name is alleged in the complaint and information, the mere fact that the evidence may indicate that she is also commonly known by some other name or names would not defeat the prosecution. Rutherford v. State, 13 Tex. App. 92; Elehash v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 34 S. W. 928.
We do not deem it necessary to review appellant's other assigned errors in detail.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial