Purkey v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45862,45862 |
| Citation | 494 S.W.2d 541 |
| Parties | James O. PURKEY, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. G. Walley, Jr., Walter M. Sekaly, Everett B. Lord, Beaumont, for appellants.
Tom Hanna, Dist. Atty., Dexter Patterson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a final judgment upon forfeiture of an appearance bond. Appellants are the sureties on the bond.
Appellants cite two points of error, only one of which we need consider. In their second point of error, appellants allege that though the State introduced into evidence the indictment, the bond, and the docket sheet, the judgment nisi was never tendered into evidence. Appellants' point is well taken. A review of the statement of facts reflects that the State never introduced the judgment nisi into evidence. The State concedes error.
The judgment nisi is a necessary and essential element of the State's cause of action in a bond forfeiture case, for without a judgment nisi there can be no final judgment. Morgan et al. v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 247 S.W.2d 94 (1952); Hester et al. v. State, 15 Tex.App. 418 (1884); McWhorter et al. v. State, 14 Tex.App. 239 (1883); Houston v. State, 13 Tex.App. 560 (1883); Moreland v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 452, 55 S.W.2d 1044, 1046 (1933); Nelson v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 73 S.W. 398 (1903); White et al. v. State, 101 Tex.Cr.R. 505, 276 S.W. 274 (1925).
The present cause is virtually identical to the situation faced by this Court in Morgan et al. v. State, supra. In both cases, the judgment nisi was never tendered into evidence though it was included in the record filed with this Court. That procedure is not proper.
Since the judgment nisi was not introduced into evidence, the proof is insufficient to support the final judgment.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hokr v. State, 51997
...proof is insufficient to support the final judgment of forfeiture. Fears v. State, 500 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Purkey v. State, 494 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). We will not adhere to that rule in the present cause. We hold that the trial court may hereafter judicially notice the judg......
-
Fears v. State, 47486
...and ordered it to be filed. In reversing the judgment and remanding the cause, this Court, speaking through Judge Roberts, in Purkey v. State, 494 S.W.2d 541, said: 'The judgment nisi is a necessary and essential element of the State's cause of action in a bond forfeiture case, for without ......
-
Smith v. State, s. 52665
...forfeiting a bail bond must be supported by the judgment nisi. Fears v. State, 500 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Purkey v. State, 494 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Morgan v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 247 S.W.2d 94 (1952). The State did not offer in evidence the judgments nisi; the State con......