Case ID: sw_132/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McGINSEY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 7, 1910.)
    Indictment and Information (§ 87) — Sufficiency of Accusation — Time of Offense.
    An indictment for robbery, charging the offense to have been committed on February 29, 1910, an impossible date, makes no sufficient averment as to time, and is therefore fatally defective.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 244-255; Dec. Dig. § 87.]
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Biehard I. Munroe, Judge.
    Curtis McGinsey was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Beversed, and prosecution dismissed.
    J. K. Webb, for appellant. John A. Mob-ley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, and given 41 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant raises a question that necessitates the reversal and dismissal of the prosecution. The indictment alleges the offense to have been committed on the 29th day of February, 1910. This is an impossible date, and is not, therefore, a sufficient allegation of time. The statute requires that there shall be some particular date mentioned. In the ease of Stephens v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 406, 103 S. W. 904, this precise question came before us, and it was held that the indictment was not sufficient. The indictment in the Stephens Case charged the offense to have been committed on June 31, 1906. The indictment was held insufficient The authorities are collated in the Stephens Case. In the Barnes Case, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 59 S. W. 882, 96 Am. St. Rep. 801, the indictment charged that the offense was committed on or about the-day of-, A. D. 1900. That was held fatally defective.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.