Case ID: sw_206/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 5190.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 13, 1918.)
    Indictment and Information <&wkey;159(3) — Matters of Form or Substance — Time. •
    Error in indictment, alleging that defendant appeared before grand jury on a certain date and testified falsely to something which did not occur, until a subsequent date, was a matter of substance and not of form, and could not be held immaterial or cured by amendment.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Sam Johnson was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was convicted of perjury. There were some motions to quash the indictment, which were overruled. It is unnecessary to state them. There was no merit in any of them. However, after the conviction appellant further attacked the indictment on the ground that it alleged that on February 6, 1918, appellant appeared before the grand jury, was duly sworn, etc., and that he falsely testified that, on or about March 3, 1918, one John Parker did not sell to him a half pint of intoxicating liquor on March 3, 1918.

From this it will be seen that the indictment alleges that appellant appeared before the grand jury on February 6, 1918, and swore falsely to something that did not occur until March 3d subsequently. The trial judge held that the alleged date of February 6th, as the one he appeared before the grand jury and swore falsely, etc., was a clerical error, and that the true date was March 6th, and he held that this was a matter of form and not of substance.

In this we think the trial judge was clearly in error. In our opinion it was a matter of substance and not of form, and could not have been amended, nor could it be held to be immaterial.

The result is that the judgment must be reversed, and the cause dismissed, which is ordered.