Ex parte McFarland
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
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
- Vasquez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
- Archer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
- Ex Parte MillardCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
- Ex Parte HyettCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- William David Kelley v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2014
- Daigle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- Ex Parte GibsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.