Pisano v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 1895 |
| Citation | 29 S.W. 42 |
| Parties | PISANO v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Duval county; A. L. McLane, Judge.
Rafael Pisano was convicted of the theft of horses, and appeals. Affirmed.
R. L. Henry, for the State.
Motion was made to quash the indictment, because it charged no offense; because it was repugnant; and because it was duplicitous, and charged two separate and distinct offenses. The indictment contained two counts. The first alleged theft of four horses from Miguel de la Garza; the second charging theft of four horses from Reyes Pena. In order to constitute duplicity, two or more distinct felonies must be averred in the same count. In this indictment distinct offenses are apparently set out in different counts. This is the proper practice. If the evidence develops distinct transactions, the state should be required to elect upon which count the conviction would be asked. As to repugnancy, it may be stated, in a general way, to consist in pleading two inconsistent allegations in the same count. It does not apply to repugnancy which of necessity exists between different counts in the same indictment. The exceptions are not well taken. Boren v. State, 23 Tex. App. 35, 4 S. W. 463; Willson's Cr. St. §§ 1980, 1981.
2. Special instructions requested by appellant, in effect directing an acquittal if he was guilty of robbery, were properly refused, because not warranted by the testimony adduced in the trial. We are of opinion the evidence amply supports the verdict, the charge is fair and full, and the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Busby v. State
...The motion was made after the verdict, and came too late, unless there was an absolute repugnance in the indictment. See Pisano v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 29 S. W. 42; Nicholas v. State, 23 Tex. App. 317, 5 S. W. 239; Rumage v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 55 S. W. Appellant contends that the co......
-
Melley v. State
...were charged in the same count. "Where it is done, the indictment becomes duplicitous, and therefore defective"—citing Pisano v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 29 S. W. 42; Heineman v. State, 22 Tex. App. 44, 2 S. W. No point seems to have been made concerning the manner in which the question wa......
-
Villalva v. State
...47 Tex.Cr.R. 543, 84 S.W. 1058, which is cited by appellant, without analysis or discussion, and upon the authority of Pisano v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 29 S.W. 42, and Heineman v. State, 22 Tex.App. 44, 2 S.W. 619, holds that a motion in arrest of judgment aimed at duplicity in an indictme......
-
Goode v. State
...If distinct offenses are charged in different counts in the same indictment, the state may be required to elect. See Pisano v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 69, 29 S. W. 42. If the same transaction or offense is charged in different counts, each count alleging a different mode or means of doing the......