Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 07 March 1900 |
| Citation | 56 S.W. 54 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Falls county; Sam R. Scott, Judge.
Peter Smith was convicted of hog theft, and appeals. Reversed.
Rice & Bartlett, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of hog theft, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Appellant moved to quash the indictment for the following reasons: At the January term, 1899, of the district court of Falls county, the judge thereof appointed three jury commissioners, as provided by law, to draw the grand jurors for the ensuing July term, 1899, which jury commissioners selected 16 persons, as required, to serve as grand jurors for said July term of court. On the 17th of April thereafter, the legislature changed the terms of the district court of Falls county, giving Falls county three terms of the district court, instead of two, as theretofore. The district judge requested the clerk to open the list of grand jurors summoned for the July term, and issue subpœnas for said grand jurors to serve at the June term, 1899, which was done, and the grand jury legally drawn for the July term of court was sworn and impaneled for the June term. Hence appellant moves to quash the indictment. We do not think the motion to quash was well taken. Article 397, Code Cr. Proc., provides: We have heretofore construed this statute, and held it is too late after indictment found to question the impanelment of the grand jury or any particular grand juror; and we have further held that the failure of the jury commissioners to sign and certify the list of grand jurors is no ground for motion in arrest of judgment. Carter v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 46 S. W. 236; Barber v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 46 S. W. 233.
In the view we take of this case, we do not deem it necessary to consider more than one other assignment, believing the other errors assigned are not likely to occur on another trial. Appellant complains of the following portion of the court's charge: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Williams v. State
- French v. State
-
King v. State
...comment upon it. The charge given has been the subject of adverse criticism by this court in quite a number of cases. See Smith v. State (Dallas term, 1900) 56 S. W. 54; McCarty v. State, 35 S. W. 994; Scott v. State, 36 S. W. 276; Wheeler v. State, 30 S. W. The other errors assigned are no......
-
Smith v. State
...was convicted of the theft of a hog, and given two years in the penitentiary. This is the second appeal of this case. See Smith v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 54. Appellant's first assignment of error is that the court erred in charging upon the law of recent possession of stolen propert......