Reed v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1892 |
| Parties | REED v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Browning & Madden, for appellant. R. H. Harrison, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction for keeping a disorderly house. On the day of her arrest appellant's case was called for trial, whereupon her counsel stated to the court that they could claim two entire days in which to prepare and file written pleadings, but were not inclined to do so, and thereby delay the court, if they could avoid it; that they were not then ready to answer and plead, and did not know (the defendant having been arrested only about two hours at that time) whether they could announce ready for trial that evening or not. Upon being asked by the court if they could be ready at the convening of the court the next morning, they replied they thought they would know by that time whether they would be ready, and, if not, they would have a motion for a continuance prepared. When the court convened the following morning the state announced ready for trial, whereupon defendant stated that she was not ready to announce in the case, and claimed the two days allowed by law in which to prepare and file her written pleadings. She was then granted until 10 o'clock that morning, at which time she filed her motion to set aside the information, her motion to strike certain words from the information as surplusage, and her exceptions to the substance and form of the information, "The court held that the defendant had waived the time allowed in which to file written pleadings," and, over her objections, forced her into trial. Code Crim.Proc. art. 531, provides that "in all cases the defendant shall be allowed two entire days, exclusive of all fractions of a day, after his arrest, and during the term of the court, to file written pleadings. "In construing this statute the primary inquiry is, what did the legislature intend by enacting it,— what right or privilege did it grant to the defendant in the premises? That being ascertained, the next question presented is, was the defendant deprived of that right erroneously? Every statutory provision with reference to the trial of criminal cases was enacted with some purpose or object in view; otherwise it would be useless, and would be disregarded. By an inspection of the statute under consideration, it will be seen that the purpose of its enactment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...having ascertained that he was legally entitled thereto under article 578 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See, also, Reed v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 19 S. W. 678; Evans v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 32, 35 S. W. 169. In Reed's Case it was held by this court, in an opinion by Judge Davidson,......
-
McKenzie v. State
...determine whether written pleadings are necessary in the case, and to decide upon his course as to the trial of the case. Reed v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 19 S. W. 678, and numerous other cases collated in Branch's Ann. Tex. P. C. § It is manifest that in enacting the statute it is the vie......
-
Oliver v. State
...359, 147 S.W. 235 (Tex.Cr.App.1912); Woodall v. State, 25 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 8 S.W. 802 (Tex.Ct.App.1888); and Reed v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 19 S.W. 678 (Tex.Ct.App.1892). Art. 27.11, supra, specifically provides: "In all cases the defendant shall be allowed ten entire days, exclusive of all ......
-
Stephens v. State
...be mandatory by the authorities. This action of the court was error. Article 578 of Revised Code of Criminal Procedure; Reed v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 19 S. W. 678; Evans v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 32, 35 S. W. 169; Holden v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 71 S. W. 600; McFadin v. State, 44 Te......