Legal Opinion

State v. Perkins

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1876PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from Freestone. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Rector.

1Opinion of the Court

Moore, Associate Justice.

The indictment charges the defendant with receiving stolen goods.

While it is unnecessary, in an indictment for this offense, to name the original thief by whom, the goods were stolen, or to allege the time and place of the original larceny, it is essential to state, if known, the name of the owner of the goods. (2 Bishop’s Cr. Prac., sec. 928.)

The person from whom they were received must also be alleged in. the indictment. (The State v. Juro, 13 Ind., 338; The State v. Beaty, Phill., 52.)

Li both of these essential particulars the indictment is defective. The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Jones v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Polk v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
  2. Zweig v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
  3. Payne v. StatedCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
  4. Anderson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
  5. Kahanek v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1918

9 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