Smith v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That on or about the 6th day of February, in the year of .our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-six, and before the presentment hereof, with force and arms, in the county and State aforesaid, one C. A. Smith did, in the night time, by force, threats and fraud, break and enter a house there situate and occupied by Doud & Foster, a firm of copartners then and there composed of John Doud and W. G. Foster, without the consent of…
Read the full summary
The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That on or about the 6th day of February, in the year of .our Lord eighteen hundred and ninety-six, and before the presentment hereof, with force and arms, in the county and State aforesaid, one C. A. Smith did, in the night time, by force, threats and fraud, break and enter a house there situate and occupied by Doud & Foster, a firm of copartners then and there composed of John Doud and W. G. Foster, without the consent of said firm, and with the intent fraudulently to take from the said house corporeal personal property therein being and…
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and given two years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal. Appellant moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that, after the charge of breaking, in the language introducing the charge as to the intent to commit theft, the phrase “then and there” was not used. In the indictment the charge of breaking is coupled with the charge as to the intent by the conjunction “and.” Ordinarily, where the evidence consists of a series of connected acts, it is necessary, instead of repeating the time and place originally alleged, to use the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Butler v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- Campbell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Nagel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Moreno v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911