Case ID: tex-ct-app_26/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hurt, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6119.
    H. C. and J. T. Cunningham v. The State.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    Joint Offenders—Verdict—Judgment.—Upon the trial of Joint of* ' fenders, if the same results in conviction, the verdict must assess separate penalties, and the judgment must conform to such verdict. The verdict in this ease reads as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged, and assess the fine at one hundred dollars;’ to which verdict the judgment conforms. Held, that the verdict assesses a joint penalty, and that the judgment is not legal.
    
      Opinion delivered June 30, 1888.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Saba. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Moursund.
    The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.
    
      W. B. Dunham, for the motion.
    
      W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Hurt, Judge.

At a former day of the term this judgment was affirmed without a written opinion, the only points considered being the sufficiency of the indictment, the correctness of the charge, and the evidence.

The motion urges, for the first time, that the verdict and judgment are illegal, and the point is well taken.

Two defendants were jointly indicted and tried. The verdict was: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged, and assess the fine at one hundred dollars.” The judgment on this verdict adjudges a joint fine. The law does not authorize such a judgment, and the verdict would not support a legal judgment. (Flynn et al. v. The State, 8 Texas Ct. App., 398; Matlock v. The State, 25 Texas Ct. App., 715.)

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.