Case ID: sw_244/html/0816-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GOLDEN v. STATE.
    (No. 7064.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 8, 1922.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;627(4) — Copy of information must be furnished defendant before announcing ready for trial.
    Under Code Cr. Proc.- 1911, art 554, the court must have a copy of the information furnished to defendant on demand before announcing ready for trial, if not previously furnished, where there is no impediment to compliance with the statute and it requires no delay of the trial; the purpose of its enactment being to enforce the provision of the Bill of Rights that accused shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have a copy thereof (Const, art. 1, § 10).
    Appeal from McLennan County Court; Giles P. Lester, Judge.
    Steve Golden was convicted of unlawfully operating a pool hall, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for unlawfully operating a pool hall; punishment fixed at a fine of $50.

Before announcing ready for trial, appellant requested that he be furnished with a copy of the information against him. The bill shows that he had not been previously furnished one. The law declares that—

“He or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall be given at as early a day as possible.” Code of Crim. Proc. art. 554.

There is no impediment in the instant case to the compliance with this statute. It required no delay of the trial. It was the imperative duty of the court to have the copy demanded furnished. Venn v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 638, 218 S. W. 1060; Revill v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 218 S. W. 1044; Mayes v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 222 S. W. 571; Wray v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 632, 232 S. W. 808; Matheson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 1013. The enactment oí the statute was doubtless to enforce the provision of the Bill of Rights wherein it is said that one accused of crime “shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.” Const. art. 1, § 10.

The court was not warranted in refusing this demand. Because of its refusal, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.