Scroggins v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Defendant filed a motion to arrest the judgment, among other reasons, because the indictment does not show that the burglarized house was occupied by anyone. This motion was overruled. No statement of facts in the record.
1Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, with intent to commit theft. Omitting the preceding portions of the indictment, it is averred that appellant “did then and there unlawfully, by force, threats and fraud, break and enter a house there situated, and occupied Wm. Stonell, without the consent of the said Wm. Stonell,” etc. The sufficiency of this indictment was attacked in the lower court, by motion in arrest of judgment, because it failed to aver that the house was occupied “by” William Stonell. ■ The contention is based upon the omission of the word “by” between the word…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Edmondson v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- State v. DaughertyTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- State v. HutchinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1861
- State v. HustonTexas Supreme Court · 1854
- State v. ToneyTexas Supreme Court · 1854
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brown v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Mathews v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Odell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Ordell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Latham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911