State v. Casey
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from San Augustine. Tried below before the Hon.R S. Walker. Indictment against the appellee, quashed on his motion. The district attorney appealed on behalf of the State. Motion of appellee to dismiss for want of a sufficient recognizance, the character of which sufficiently appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The motion to dismiss- the appeal in this case, for Want of a sufficient recognizance, must be sustained. Article 723-of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares that, “ The defendant shall also be required, when the State appeals, to enter into recognizance to appear before the District Court to answer the criminal accusation against him, in case the judgment of the District Court be reversed.” If this were the only provision of the Code bearing upon the question, it might be, in view of the objects and purposes to be subserved by the recognizance, and testing it alone by common law…
2Cited by6 opinions
- La Grotta v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Joelson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
- Horton v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Horton v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Lopez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.