Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 1894 |
| Citation | 26 S.W. 400 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Jones county; C. P. Woodruff, Judge.
Rat Martin was convicted of making a false statement before the grand jury, and appeals. Reversed.
J. F. Cunningham, Jr., and Christenberry & Morrison, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of making a false statement before the grand jury of Jones county, and his punishment fixed at five years. We copy so much of the indictment as is material: "Whereupon it then and there became and was a material inquiry before the said grand jury, and necessary," etc., "whether one John Browning and one Charley Brown, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 23d of November, 1893, did fraudulently take one satchel, and eighty dollars, of the value of eighty dollars, the personal property of one Sam Smith, from the possession of said Sam Smith," etc.; "and the said Rat Martin, on the day first named, in said state and county, before and to the said grand jury, under the sanction of said oath administered to him as aforesaid, willfully and deliberately did state and testify that the said Sam Smith and J. B. Fitzgerald, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 28th of November, 1893, did place a satchel in the straw stack between McFoy's and Cockrell's places, and cover said satchel with straw, etc., whereas, in truth and fact, the said Sam Smith and J. B. Fitzgerald did not then and there place a satchel in a straw stack between McFoy's and Cockrell's places, and cover said satchel with straw, which said statement so made by Rat Martin before and to said grand jury as aforesaid was willfully and deliberately false, and the said Rat Martin knew the same to be false when he made it, against," etc.
Appellant moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that there was no allegation showing that the alleged false statement was material to the matter investigated by the grand jury. There is no question that the materiality of the alleged false statement should plainly appear, either by direct averment or by allegation of such facts as will show it. In the case at bar the indictment alleges that the inquiry whether Brown and Browning stole the satchel and money of Sam Smith from the possession of said Smith on the 23d of November, 1893, was the material inquiry before the grand jury, but it is nowhere alleged that the false statement was in any way material to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...making it. This case has been followed by some of the courts and without reason as Mr. Wigmore clearly shows. The case of Martin v. State, 26 S.W. 400 (Tex.), to follow this precedent and admitted the confession. It is true that there are not many cases in which this point has been decided ......
-
Jones v. State
...could have influenced the tribunal in which it was made. Rahn v. State, 30 Tex. App. 310 [17 S. W. 416, 28 Am. St. Rep. 911]; Martin v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 317 ; Williams v. State, 28 Tex. App. 301 . The degree of materiality is of no importance. Williams v. State, 28 Tex. App. 301 . It m......
-
The State v. Gordon
...or absence of a pistol in the hands of Leo Lett at said time. Heflin v. State, 88 Ga. 152; Maynard v. People, 135 Ill. 433; Martin v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 319. (5) It has been the settled law of Missouri that the appellant must object to the giving of the respondent's instructions at the ti......
-
State v. Gordon
...against the accused, to show that his testimony as to some of the particulars of the transaction was false. So, in Martin v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 317, 26 S. W. 400, defendant was charged with perjury before the grand jury, concerning the theft of property by two other parties, and it was h......