McVicker v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The indictment charged, leaving out formal parts of it: “The grand jurors for the County of Somervell, State aforesaid, duly organized as such, at the November term, A. D., 1906, of the district court for said county, upon their oaths in said court present, that on or about the 17th day of May, A. D., 1905, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment in the County of Somervell and State of Texas, at a regular term of the district court, holden in and for said county,…
Read the full summary
The indictment charged, leaving out formal parts of it: “The grand jurors for the County of Somervell, State aforesaid, duly organized as such, at the November term, A. D., 1906, of the district court for said county, upon their oaths in said court present, that on or about the 17th day of May, A. D., 1905, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment in the County of Somervell and State of Texas, at a regular term of the district court, holden in and for said county, the Hon. W. J". Oxford, judge of said court, presiding, and before the grand jury of said county, which had theretofore…
1Opinion of the Court
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of perjury and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the" State penitentiary.
The only question we deem necessary to pass upon in this case is the sufficiency of the indictment, and the evidence supporting the same. The indictment is very inartistically drawn and is defective in that the same does not show how or wherein the statement upon which perjury is predicated became material. This criticism also applies to the evidence in the case since it does not show how or wherein it was material to know whether or not Tom Finley…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wright v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
- Cox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Yardley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Dodson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1955