Case ID: sw_235/html/0211-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARVER v. STATE.
    (No. 6386.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1921.)
    Indictment and information <&wkey;>87(2), 122(4)— Conviction reversed, where impossible date alleged, or there is variance between complaint and information.
    Where the time of the offense charged is laid at an impossible date, -or there' is a variance between the allegation of the date in the complaint and information, a conviction will not be sanctioned.
    Appeal from Comanche County Court; F. J. Reese, Judge.
    Bob Carver was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
    Callaway & Callaway, of Comanche, for appellant.
    R.'G. Storey, Asst. At'ty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for aggravated assault; punishment fixed at a fine of ?500.

The complaint alleges the date of the offense at an impossible date, namely, the 20th of December, 19120. The information states the date of the term of court as January, 19120, and the datar of the offense December 20, 1920. Touching errors of this character, this court, at an early date, said:

“It is better that the judgment should be reversed than to establish such a precedent, or encourage carelessness in the preparation of so important a part of the record to be brought to this court as the indictment.”

The necessity that the date of the offense charged in the complaint and information must correspond has been frequently declared. Hoerr v. State, 4 Tex. App. 75; Lackey v. State,53 Tex. Cr. R. 459, 110 S. W. 903; Winn v. State, 223 S. W. 230. Where the date of the offense is laid at an impossible date or where there is a variance between the allegation of the date of the offense in the complaint and information, this court has uniformly refused to sanction the conviction. Donaldson v. State, 15 Tex. App. 30; Clement v. State, 22 Tex. App. 25, 2 S. W. 379; Harwell v. State, 65 S. W. 521; Collins v. State, 5 Tex. App. 37; and citations thereof in Rose’s Notes on Texas Rep. (2d Ed.) vol. 4, p. 1215.

Because of the impossible date and variance referred to, the judgment is ordered reversed, and the prosecution dismissed. 
      (gs>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes