Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Tex. Crim. 528

84 S.W 831

Martinus v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 18, 1905

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1905-01-18

<p>1. —Burglary—Indictment—Variance.</p> <p>Where a count in the indictment, which was submitted to the jury, alleged the burglary of a house at night, and the proof showed that the house burglarized was a private dwelling, the variance was fatal.</p> <p>2. —Same—Separate Offenses.</p> <p>A daytime burglary of a house, or the night-time burglary of a house, is a distinct and separate offense from the night-time burglary of a dwelling house.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1905-01-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1979

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

3019051910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

HENDERSON, Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years; hence this appeal. The only question we need consider is an alleged variance between the indictment, or the count of the indictment under which appellant was convicted, and the evidence. The indictment charges appellant with burglary in two counts: the first count charging the burglary of a private residence at night, and the second count charging the burglary of a house at night. The court submitted only the last count in the indictment, and appellant was convicted under that count. The evidence shows unquestionably that the house alleged to have been burglarized, and which appellant is shown to have entered by force, was a private dwelling, where a family resided. Consequently there was a variance between the allegations of the count under which appellant was convicted and the evidence in the case. The qustion here presented was passed upon in Osborne v. State, 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 172; Cleland v. State, 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 172; and Harvey v. State, 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 171. However, those cases were subsequently overruled upon another question in Williams v. State, 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 359. Holland v. State, 7 Texas Ct. Rep., 912. The authorities hold that a daytime burglary of a house or the night-time burglary of a house, is a distinct and separate offense from the night-time burglary of a dwelling house; and if on an ordinary indictment for burglary of a house, the evidence shows without any controversy that the house was a dwelling house, where a family resided, there is a variance and the conviction cannot be sustained. This is analogous to cases where the indictment charges general theft, and the proof shows it was a theft *529 committed from the person. In such case there is a variance. Harris v. State, 17 Texas Crim. App., 132; Gage v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 123; Dalton v. State, 27 S. W. Rep., 259; Nichols v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 105.

¶2 The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

¶3 Reversed and remanded.

/47/texcrim/528 · .json · Public domain