Sanders v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. B. L. Waddill. The appellant was indicted for the theft of a pistol; and the indictment, as presented by the grand jury, omitted to state the time at which the offence was alleged to have been committed. The District Attorney was allowed to amend the indictment by the insertion of the time, and the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that the court below erred in permitting the District Attorney to amend the indictment by inserting in it the words “in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one.” Article 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes the requisites of an indictment, pro*120vides that the time mentioned in the indictment as the time when the offence was committed, must be some date anterior to the presentment of the indictment, and not so remote that the prosecution of the offence is barred by limitation. No part of an indictment can be more matter of substance as…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Wade v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Huff v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1887
- Rhodes v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1884
- Ex parte McFarlandCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1982
- Kirkendall v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.