Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Tex. Ct. App. 369

Jester v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 3, 1888

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1888-11-03

Tried below before the Hon. Anson Rainey. The conviction was for burglary, and the penalty assessed was a term of two years in the penitentiary. The disposition made of the appeal does not necessitate a statement of the evidence as adduced on the trial.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-11-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2010

4 state decisions

1018881890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Willson, Judge.

¶1It appears from the record that the defendant was tried by a jury of six men. Such trial was not in accordance with law, and the conviction must be set aside. (Const., art. 5, sec. 13; Code Crim. Proc., art. 595; Rich v. The State, 1 Texas Ct. App., 206; Huebner v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App., 458; Marks v. The State, 10 Texas Ct. App., 334.) This error in the conviction is confessed by the Assistant Attorney General.

¶2In the indictment, as it appears in the record, there is a fatal defect, in so far as it undertakes to charge burglary. It alleges that the defendant “then and there, by force, break and enter a house,” etc., omitting the essential word “did.” If guch *370omission be in tbe original indictment, a conviction for said offense can not be sustained upon it. (Walker v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 177; Moore v. The State, 7 Texas Ct. App., 42.) The indictment, however, is a good one for the offense of theft. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion delivered November 3, 1888.

¶3Reversed and remanded,

/26/texctapp/369 · .json · Public domain