Young v. State

• Decision Date: 03 June 1903
• Citation: 75 S.W. 23
• Parties: YOUNG v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

75 S.W. 23

YOUNG v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1903.

Appeal from District Court, Brazos County; J. C. Scott, Judge.

Bill Young was convicted of theft of money in excess of $50, and appeals. Reversed.

Lock McDaniel and Sam R. Henderson, for appellant. V. B. Hudson, Dist. Atty., M. Nagle, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft of money in excess of $50, the penalty assessed being six years in the penitentiary.

When the case was called for trial, appellant interposed what is termed a "plea in bar" of the prosecution. This is based upon an agreement had in Grimes county with the district attorney of that district, that county being in a different judicial district from Brazos county. This plea avers that appellant and one Dunlap were charged by the grand jury of Grimes county with burglary and theft, the theft being committed at the time of the burglary. The parties were jointly indicted for both offenses. When the case was called, the district attorney moved to dismiss the case as to appellant, as he had made a contract with him to testify against his codefendant, Dunlap, which contract carried with it appellant's immunity from punishment. The court entertained the motion to dismiss, and both cases against appellant were dismissed from the docket in Grimes county. The court stated, in substance, that, if they desired to dismiss the case as to Young in Grimes county, as that county had exclusive jurisdiction of the burglary case, he would permit the dismissal, and recognize the agreement of the district attorney as to the burglary case. He also dismissed the case as to the theft on same motion, but remanded appellant to the custody of the sheriff of Brazos county, because he stated Brazos county had concurrent jurisdiction with Grimes over the offense of theft. On the trial of the plea in Brazos county the district judge who presided at the trial in Grimes county took the stand as a witness, and stated, in substance, that he recognized the agreement as to the burglary case, and dismissed the case as to the theft, because he believed the district attorney intended to give appellant a verdict in Grimes county. The motion of the district attorney entered in the district court of Grimes county was the same in both cases, and based upon the same facts. In Tullis v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 87, 52 S. W. 83, it was held that, in order to make this character of agreement valid, it must have the sanction of the trial judge. Agreements of the character under discussion have been recognized by the decisions of this state with...