State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Citation | 24 Tex. 285 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. GABRIEL SMITH. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
An indictment against a party, as accessary after the fact, need not show that he is not included within the description of persons embraced in the latter clause of article 225, or of article 226 of the penal code. 16 Tex. 472.
Where an indictment for the offense of being accessary after the fact, to a theft, alleged, as acts constituting the aid and assistance given to the principal, that the defendant concealed him, and by force and threats prevented his arrest by an officer: Held, that the indictment was not vitiated by the allegation of the other acts, besides the concealment.
APPEAL from Bell. Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle.
Attorney General, for the appellant.
X. B. Sanders, for the appellee.
This indictment accuses Gallaher of the theft of a gelding, and Smith of being accessary to it. It was quashed on motion, as to Smith. The grounds relied on are: 1st. That it fails to state an offense at all, because it does not negative the exceptions contained in the code, indicating who can not be accessaries; and, 2d. It is bad for duplicity.
Crim. Code, art. 225. The latter clause of the article contains rather an explanation of what is not included in the definition, than an exception to it. It is a sort of aid, necessary for the innocent, and therefore the law will not permit the motives and objects of those who furnish it, to be inquired into. Although it is embraced in the same article, it is certainly no part of the definition of the offense. Article 226 contains a list of persons who are declared to be exempt from liability, as accessaries, on account of the relation they sustain to the offender. This is properly an exception to the enacting clause. Being no part of the definition of the offense, and found in a separate article, it is not necessary to notice it in an indictment, but it is matter of defense, under a plea of not guilty. Whart. Crim. L. 138; 7 Blackf. 590.
Duplicity is not specially made a ground of exception to an indictment, by our code. Crim. Pro. art. 487, 488. It may well be conceived, that it might be such as to be included in one of the grounds that are specified as permissible. For instance, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. State
...such exceptions constitute a part of the description and definition of the offense, and unless negatived no offense is stated. State v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285; Hewitt v. State, 25 Tex. 722; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455; State v. Clayton, 43 Tex. 410; Lewis v. State, 2 Tex. App. 26; Owens v. State......
-
Dent v. State
...alleged, will be treated as surplusage. Crow v. State, 41 Tex. 468; State v. Coffey, Id. 46; State v. Dorsett, 21 Tex. 656; State v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285; Henderson v. State, 2 Tex. App. 88; Pickett v. State, 10 Tex. App. 290; Holden v. State, 18 Tex. App. 91. Redundant allegations, and those......
-
Goodwin v. State
...Tex. Cr. R. 148, 29 S. W. 787; Brown v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 44 S. W. 176; Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 40 S. W. 287; State v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285; State v. Edmondson, 43 Tex. 162. See, also, section 383, p. 286, White's C. C. P. Mr. Bishop, in volume 1, § 434, of his New Crimin......
-
Herrington v. State
...Tex. Cr. R. 148, 29 S. W. 787; Brown v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 44 S. W. 176; Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 40 S. W. 287; State v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285; State v. Edmondson, 43 Tex. 162. See, also, section 383, p. 286, White's C. C. P. Mr. Bishop, in volume 1, § 434, of his New Crimin......