Jorasco v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Travis. Tried below before the Hon. E. J3. Turner. The opinion clearly discloses the facts.
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
The three principal grounds relied upon in the motion to quash the indictment were: 1. That it did not charge that the property was “feloniously” taken. 2. It did not charge that the property was stolen and carried away. 3. It did not state the name of the owner of the property stolen.
Since the adoption of our Penal Code, the word “ feloniously” is not required in charging the offence laid in the indictment. In theft, the statutory word is “ fraudulent,” and “fraudulently” is the equivalent of “feloniously.” Even in an indictment for a capital felony, the word ‘ ‘ feloniously ” is not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Calvin v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- Cheek v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1862
- Blodget v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1852
- Reed v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1855
- Austin v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sanchez, OrlandoCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2012