Case ID: sw_220/html/1095-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GUERRERO v. STATE.
    (No. 5798.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 21, 1920.)
    1. Infants >&wkey;l6 — Merely charging incorrigibility too general to show delinquency.
    . A complaint and information to have child adjudged a delinquent, charging him to be “an incorrigible child” were too general; allegations of matters showing incorrigibility being necessary.
    2. Infants &wkey;>l6 — Mere charge of immoral conduct in public places insufficient.
    A complaint and information, charging one to be a delinquent child in “that he is guilty of immoral conduct in public places, to wit, the streets of San Antonio,” were too general; allegations of matters showing immorality being necessary.
    Appeal from Bexar County Court; J. R. Davis, Judge.
    Jose Angel Guerrero was adjudged a delinquent child, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    See, also, 217 S. W. 1054.
    Heilbron & Matthews, of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was prosecuted as a delinquent child, in the county court of Bexar county, and upon trial was adjudged to be such, and ordered to be confined in the Bexar County Training School for one year.

In the complaint and information, four grounds of delinquency are averred: (1) That appellant is an incorrigible child; (2) that he knowingly associates with thieves; (3) that he habitually wanders about the streets at night, without being on any business or occupation; (4) that he is guilty of immoral conduct in public places, to wit, the streets of San Antonio.

In Hogue v. State, No. 5754, 220 S. W. 96 (not yet officially reported), we held that merely to charge one as an incorrigible was too general, and that such charge, to be sufficient, must be accompanied by allegations ‘of sufficient matters, showing incorrigibility. We' now make the same holding as to the fourth ground of delinquency, above stated. We think that to charge one with immoral conduct is not sufficiently specific, and that the form of the pleading should set out substantially such facts as are relied upon to show immoral conduct. This leaves only two grounds of delinquency sufficiently alleged in the state’s pleading in the instant case. Turning to the statement of facts, which contains less than two pages, and examining the testimony of the only witness for the state, we find nothing from which it could be inferred that the appellant habitually wandered on the streets at night, or that he knowingly associated with thieves; in fact, there is nothing in the record to support any of the four grounds of delinquency which are attempted to be charged against appellant. The cause must be reversed for the insufficiency of the testimony. In this connection, it appears that the boy is of an age such as that he itaay legally choose his own guardian, his natural guardians being dead; and the fact that he wishes to live with his uncle in the country, and to have him for his guardian, affords no reason why his grandfather should have appellant prosecuted because he refuses to comply with the wishes and directions of said grandfather.

' For the reasons stated, the cause is reversed and remanded. 
      <@=^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes