Maranda v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. T. C. Barden. The defendants were indicted and convicted for passing a galvanized twenty-five-cent silver coin as a five-dollar gold coin. The defect on which the court acted in reversing the judgment is set out in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Associate Justice.
The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. Knowledge of the false pretense by means of which money or property is fraudulently obtained is an essential constituent of the offense with which appellants are charged. Without proof that they knew that the pretense was false, evidently they should not be convicted. And although the word “knowingly” is not one of the statutory words used in defining the offense, still, as the offense, as defined by the statute, clearly requires that it shall be proved, we think, by the rules of correct pleading, it should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. LeviTexas Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Doxey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Mathena v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
- Richardson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1877