State v. Johnson
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Smith. Indictment for playing cards, &c. The State was represented by B. T. Selman, an attorney appointed by the Court, in the absence of the District Attorney, and the indictment was signed by him acting under the appointment of the Court, as District Attorney pro tern.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Smith. Indictment for playing cards, &c. The State was represented by B. T. Selman, an attorney appointed by the Court, in the absence of the District Attorney, and the indictment was signed by him acting under the appointment of the Court, as District Attorney pro tern. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that at the date of the presentment and finding of the indictment, David W. Fields was regularly elected and commissioned District Attorney for the sixth judicial District, and that B. T. Selman never was, he is informed and believes, authorized by any legal or competent…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
We have heretofore decided that it is not essential to the validity of an indictment, that it be signed by the District Attorney. (Epps v. The State, 10 Tex. R. 474.) Ho good reason is perceived why it should be held to be essential, that the accusation be preferred or presented to the grand jury by that officer ; or why it may not be done by any other attorney, who will take upon himself the obligations necessary to ensure a faithful discharge of the duty, with the sanction, and under the authority of the Court.
It may be admitted that the Court does not possess the power to fill a vacancy…
2Cited by68 opinions
- State v. MoxleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1905
- King v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1901
- Kirk v. BakerSupreme Court of Florida · 1969
- Brent Edward Webster v. Commission for Lawyer DisciplineTexas Supreme Court · 2024
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.