Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Tex. Crim. 26

40 S.W 976

Johnson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1897-06-02

Tried below before Hon. Charles E. Davidson, County Judge. Appeal from a conviction for receiving, as county attorney, higher fees than allowed by law; penalty, a fine of $25. The Assistant Attorney-General moved to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance was fatally defective.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1922

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAVIDSON, Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted, under article 256 of the Penal Code, for willfully receiving higher fees as county attorney than authorized by law. The recognizance recites that the defendant stands charged with the offense of “extortion.” The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance recites no offense against the law. Extortion is not an offense eo nomine. Therefore, in stating the offense in the recognizance, the constituent elements of the offense must be set out. See Schoonmaker v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 424. This was not done, and the motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶2 Dismissed.

/38/texcrim/26 · .json · Public domain