Case ID: sw_280/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 9884.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 17, 1926.)
    Indictment and information <§=>41 (3).
    In prosecution on information, complaint that affiant had “good reason to believe” defendant was unlawfully carrying pistol held insufficient, where omitting “and does believe,” required by Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 222, subd. 2.
    Appeal from San Augustine County Court; W. C. Gary, Judge.
    I. D. Smith was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
    J. R. Bogard, of' San Augustine, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State. i
   HAWKINS, J.

Appeal is from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the punishment being a fine of $100.

Prosecution was by complaint and information. The complaint recites that affiant has “good reason to believe” that appellant committed the offense charged, but omitted the further allegation required by the statute, “and does believe.” Subdivision 2, art. 222, C. C. P. 1925 Revision. This defect was pointed out by motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled. It should have beert sustained. Smith v. State, 76 S. W. 436, 45; Tex. Cr. R. 411; Tompkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 800; Green v. State, 136 S. W. 467, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 50; Ex parte Ross, 261 S. W. 1042, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 451.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.