Legal Opinion

Ex parte McFarland

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 19, 1982No. 68883PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

CLINTON, Judge.

On original submission the Court found that the indictment alleging that the applicant 1 committed the offense “on or about the 31st day of April, A.D. 1978” stated “an impossible date,” 2 is fundamentally defective and did not confer jurisdiction on the trial court. Tex.Cr.App., 629 S.W.2d 761. In his motion for rehearing the State Prosecuting Attorney strongly argues that the “on or about” language of the indictment *622serves adequately to provide the trial court with jurisdiction. We granted his motion for leave to file in order to examine…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Vasquez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
  2. Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
  3. Archer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
  4. Ex Parte MillardCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
  5. Ex Parte HyettCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
  2. William David Kelley v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2014
  3. Daigle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1983
  4. Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
  5. Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API