Rhodes v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 1867 |
Citation | 29 Tex. 188 |
Parties | PATRICK RHODES v. THE STATE. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The proper mode of amending a record in regard to an indictment, would be by an order, at the time when the amendment is made, and not by erasing or altering an order entered upon the minutes of the previous term of the court. Crim. Proc. art. 508; Pas. Dig. art. 2977.
Every court has the right to judge of its own records and minutes; and if it appear that an order was actually made at a former term, and omitted to be entered by the clerk, the court may at any time direct such order to be entered on the records as of the term when it was made. 14 Tex. 456;28 Tex. 227.
A record amended, nunc pro tunc, stands as if it had never been defective, or as if the entry had been made at the proper time.
Where the indictment substantially charges the offense in the language of the statute, it is sufficient. Pas. Dig. art. 2863, note 720.
APPEAL from Walker. The case was tried before Hon. JAMES R. KENNARD, one of the district judges.
Patrick Rhodes, a freedman, was indicted for selling liquor in quantities less than a quart, without having obtained a license therefor. The defendant excepted to the indictment, on the ground, that it did not appear to have been presented or returned as required by law. The defendant moved to amend the indictment and the record, so as to obviate the exceptions. The leave to amend was granted, and the record amended; but if the indictment was amended, the record does not show it. The prisoner was found guilty, and fined $50, from which judgment he appealed, and assigned for error, the overruling his exceptions to the indictment, allowing the amendment of the record, and because neither the original nor the amended indictment stated any offense, as required by article 389 of the code of criminal procedure. Pas. Dig. art. 2858, note 719.
No briefs appear in the record, but the following is the motion of A. P. Wiley for a rehearing:
Cloud v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Patterson
...existed by the inherent power to so correct its minutes at a subsequent term. Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 Am.Dec. 131; Rhodes v. State, 29 Tex. 188; Ximenes v. Ximenes, 43 Tex. 458; Coleman v. Zapp, 105 Tex. 491, 151 S.W. 1040; Michie's Civil Digest, vol. 11, p. 106, and cases cited i......
-
Bennett v. State
...existed by the inherent power to so correct its minutes at a subsequent term. Burnet v. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 Am. Dec. 131; Rhodes v. State, 29 Tex. 188; Ximenes v. Ximenes, 43 Tex. 458; Coleman v. Zapp, 105 Tex. 491, 151 S. W. 1040; Michie's Civil Digest, vol. 11, p. 106, and cases cited ......
-
Glasser v. State
...This defect in the record was properly corrected by the order nunc pro tunc. Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 Am. Dec. 131; Rhodes v. State, 29 Tex. 188; Bennett v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 662, 194 S. W. 145, 148; Barnes v. State, 230 S. W. 986; Wichita Valley Co. v. Peery, 88 Tex. 382, 31 S......
-
McCoy v. State
...court the record may be amended so as to show the presentment of the indictment. Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 456, 65 Am. Dec. 131; Rhodes v. State, 29 Tex. 188; Denton v. State, 3 Tex. App. 635; Townsend v. State, 5 Tex. App. 574; Cox v. State, 7 Tex. App. 495; De Olles v. State, 20 Tex. App.......