Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 Tex. Crim. 77

37 S.W.2d 1018

Mitchell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 8, 1931

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1931-04-08

<p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““[1,2] An unbroken line of authorities in this state lay down the rule that, when one is charged with burglary with intent to commit some felony, it is necessary that the indictment set out the constituent elements of the felony which the state charges the accused intended to commit after his entry into the building. Reed v. State, 14 Tex.App. 666 ; Treadwell v. State, 16 Tex.App. 643 ; O’Brien v. State, 27 Tex.App. 448 , 11 S.W. 459 . The indictment in the instant case fails to allege that appellant intended to take from the possession of its named owner corporeal personal property in said house. This is one of the necessary elements of the crime of theft; this being the felony which the state set up in its indictment appellant intended to commit after entry. There are many other authorities in point. It seems unnecessary to attempt to analyze them.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gonzales v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1931-04-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1998

9 state decisions

701931194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LATTIMORE, Judge.

¶1 Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

¶2 An unbroken line of authorities in this state lay down the rule that when one is charged with burglary with intent to commit some felony, it is necessary that the indictment set out the constituent elements of the felony which the state charges the accused intended to commit after his entry into the building. Reed v. State, 14 Texas App., 666; Treadwell v. State, 16 Texas App., 643; O’Brien v. State, 27 Texas App., 448. The indictment in the instant case fails to allege that appellant intended to take from the possession of its named owner corporeal personal property in said house. This is one of the necessary elements of the crime of theft, this being the felony which the state set up in its indictment appellant intended to commit after entry. There are many other authorities in point. It seems unnecessary to attempt to analyze them.

¶3 The indictment appearing to be bad, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

¶4 Reversed and dismissed.

/118/texcrim/77 · .json · Public domain