Case ID: sw2d_25/html/1107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUNT v. STATE.
    No. 12828.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 18, 1929.
    State’s Rehearing Denied March 19, 1930.
    Chaney & Parmeter and Baskett & DeDee, all of Dallas, for appellant.
    William McCraw, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Dallas, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty. of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for murder; .punishment, death.

The indictment herein contains four counts, counts .1 and 3 charging that the accused killed .deceased with malice aforethought. Counts 2 and 4 charge that the accused killed deceased voluntarily; there being, therein no allegation that the killing was upon malice aforethought. The verdict of the jury specifically finds appellant guilty under the second count in the indictment. Said count, having failed to charge that the murder was with malice aforethought, cannot be made the basis for a judgment of conviction carrying with it a penalty greater than five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. Swilley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 25 S.W.(2d) -, opinion December 11, 1929.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

On State’s Motion for Rehearing. •

HAWKINS, J.

The same question, is involved as in Swilley v. State, in which motion for rehearing is overruled this date. Eor the same reasons set out in the opinions, both originally and on rehearing in that case, the state’s motion fox-rehearing in the present case must be overruled, and it is so ordered.