Stacy v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8054.) |
| Citation | 258 S.W. 475 |
| Parties | STACY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Hopkins County Court; R. E. Bertrem, Judge.
G. W. Stacy was convicted of adultery, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Connor & Ramey, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Adultery is the offense; punishment fixed at a fine of $100.
The prosecution is based upon complaint and information. The complaint was signed "S. E. Smith." It contained no jurat. A motion to quash the information because of the absence of complaint sworn to as required by statute was overruled. The court permitted the amendment of the complaint by inserting the jurat without any proof that Smith had made the oath. A complaint reduced to writing and verified by affidavit before an officer authorized to administer oath is made by statute an essential prerequisite for a prosecution by information. See Code of Crim. Proc. art. 479; Davis v. State, 2 Tex. App. 184; and other cases collated in Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 236. Also McDonald v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 216 S. W. 166; Reynolds v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 198 S. W. 958; Halbadier v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 220 S. W. 85; Arbetter v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 487, 186 S. W. 769.
The complaint is incomplete and insufficient to authorize the information unless it is accompanied by a jurat of the officer administering the oath. Scott v. State, 9 Tex. App. 434; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 360, 16 S. W. 253; Montgomery v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 303, 131 S. W. 1087; Robertson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 529, 8 S. W. 659; Jennings v. State, 30 Tex. App. 428, 18 S. W. 90. An amendment of the complaint is permissible; but, where the fault consists in the absence of the officer's jurat, to authorize the amendment there must be proof that the oath was administered. Nichols v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 208 S. W. 931; Montgomery v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 303, 131 S. W. 1087; Flournoy v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 29, 100 S. W. 151; Sanders v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 105 S. W. 803; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 360, 16 S. W. 253. In the present case, the complaint being without jurat, it was not sufficient to support the information. The attempt to amend it by attaching the jurat without making any proof that the complaint had been verified by oath administered according to law fails to impart the vitality...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shurbet v. State, 15923.
...of the law is made imperative by statute, article 415, C. C. P. 1925. See Vernon's Ann. Tex. C. C. P., vol. 1, p. 313; Stacy v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 258 S. W. 475; Barrington v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 11, 32 S.W.(2d) 837. The matter was not called to our attention upon the original he......
-
Murphy v. State
...administer oath, is made by statute an essential prerequisite for a prosecution by information. Article 415, C.C. P. See Stacy v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 258 S.W. 475; Day v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 286 S.W. 1107; Abbey v. State, 55 Tex. Cr.R. 232, 115 S.W. In bill of exception No. 2 com......
-
Thomas v. State
...were similar to those in the instant case, held that the complaint was void and reversed and dismissed the case, citing Stacy v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 258 S. W. 475, and Day v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 286 S. W. 1107. Under the undisputed facts in the instant case and the authoritie......
-
Stanley v. State, 21899.
...the complaint was sworn to before an officer authorized to administer the oath required under the provisions of Art. 415, C. C. P. Stacy v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 499, 258 S.W. 475; Barrington v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 11, 32 S.W.2d 837; Shurbet v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 60 S.W.2d 791; Sulliva......