State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 01 January 1871 |
| Citation | 36 Tex. 352 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. POLLY WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
An indictment for murder, laying time and place, charged that the accused “did with her express malice aforethought, unlawfully kill and murder one J. W., he, the said J. W., then and there being a reasonable creature in being, within this State, contrary to statute,” etc. Held, that the indictment is fatally defective, in that it fails to state the manner and means by which the deceased came to his death. In indictments for murder, the instrument and means by which the murder was committed should be clearly set out in the indictment.
APPEAL from Robertson. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Rector.
There is no occasion for a statement of the facts.
Wm. Alexander, Attorney-General, for the State.
No brief for the appellee has reached the hands of the reporter.
In this case the court did not err in sustaining the exceptions to the indictment, for the reason that the indictment wholly fails to state the manner and means by which the deceased came to his death.
In the case of The State v. Johnston, 11 Texas, 22, this court says: And in The State v. Croft, 15 Texas, 576, the court clearly intimate that in an indictment for murder the instrument and means of death should be clearly stated. The charge is a grave one, and should be set out with all the formality and particularity of the law, that the defendant may be informed, not only of the offense of which he is accused, but also the particular facts constituting the offense.
But Article 2272, Paschal's Digest, clearly indicates that the instrument or means by which a homicide is committed should be distinctly set out in the indictment, at least so far as known, as they are to be taken into consideration in judging of the intent of the offender, and the degree of crime. For the reasons given the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern v. State
...before that Court and it consistently held that the indictment had to charge the means by which the offense was committed. See State v. Williams, 36 Tex. 352. If the offense was committed with a weapon or other instrument, it had to allege the kind and character of the weapon or instrument ......
-
Freihage v. United States
...suffice. And if stones were used their number need not be stated. A `loaded pistol' will do." 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 514; State v. Williams, 36 Tex. 352; Dwyer v. State, 12 Tex. App. 535; Peterson v. State, 12 Tex. App. 650.' To the same effect is the case of State v. Smith, 61 N. C......
-
Brown v. State
...Hom. § 810; Bish. New Cr. Proc. 488, subd. 2. In this state the indictment for murder must state the means used in committing it. State v. Williams, 36 Tex. 352; Drye v. State, 14 Tex. App. 191. But we follow the received doctrine authorizing latitude in the proof of the averment as to the ......
-
Gragg v. State
...Drye v. State, 14 Tex.App. 185, 191, lays down the doctrine as above announced in the Jackson case, supra. Again in the case of State v. Williams, 36 Tex. 352, the Supreme Court of this State held an indictment fatally defective which failed to state the "manner and means by which the decea......