Case ID: tex-ct-app_12/html/0552-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Willson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ciriaco Rodriguez v. The State.
    1. Burglary.— Indictment for burglary must allege the particular felony intended to be committed, and describe such felony with all its statutory ingredients, and is insufficient if it charges merely an entry with intent to commit a felony, or a named felony without describing its constituent elements. That the entry was made with . intent to steal is not sufficient.
    2. Same.—The form of indictment for burglary prescribed by the act of March 26, 1881, is not sufficient to charge that offense.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Webb. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Russell.
    The indictment charged the burglary of the store-house of Garland Mays. The trial resulted in conviction, and the punishment awarded was four years in the State penitentiary.
    No brief for the appellant.
    
      H. Chilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, J.

The defendants were convicted of the offense of burglary. The indictment charges the burglary properly, until it reaches that part charging the intent, and it proceeds then to charge the intent as follows,— and the said burglarious entry was then and there so as aforesaid, then and there made with the intent to steal.”

The indictment for burglary must allege the particular felony intended to be committed, and such felony must be described with all its statutory ingredients. A general charge that the entry was with the intent to commit a felony, or that it was with the intent to commit any named felony, without describing that felony by setting forth its constituent elements, is insufficient. (State v. Portwood, 29 Texas, 47; State v. Williams, 41 Texas, 98; Wilburn v. State, 41 Texas, 237; White v. State, 1 Texas Ct. App. 211.)

The form prescribed for this offense by the act of 26th of March, 1881 (Gen. Laws 17th Leg. p. 62), we hold to be insufficient, and not such an indictment as the Constitution of the State contemplates. For our views in extenso upon this question see case of Al Williams v. State, decided at present term. (Ante, p. 395.) The judgment is reversed and the cause dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.