Field v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. A. B. Horton. The indictment was for the theft of a mule. The defendant applied for a eontinuancé, which being refused by the court he refused to plead or announce for trial; whereupon a plea of not guilty was entered for him by order of the court, and the trial progressed. The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at fifteen years in the penitentiary.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. A. B. Horton. The indictment was for the theft of a mule. The defendant applied for a eontinuancé, which being refused by the court he refused to plead or announce for trial; whereupon a plea of not guilty was entered for him by order of the court, and the trial progressed. The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at fifteen years in the penitentiary. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he had sentence in accordance with the verdict. The question of venue was not mooted in the court below, in any form; but the statement of…
1Opinion of the CourtOgden, J.
The appellant in this case was indicted in the district court for the theft of a mule, and was tried, convicted and *41sentenced to fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary. On the trial of the case the State wholly failed to prove the venue of the offense. It was nob shown by the evidence that the animal was taken from the county of Dallas, or that the animal charged to have been stolen, or the defendant, was ever in the county of Dallas, or the State of Texas, until the defendant was brought there for trial. For this defect in the proof the verdict of the jury was not authorized by law,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. HinkleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Gowin v. GowinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- in the Matter of M. C., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002
- in the Matter of M. C., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002