Case ID: tex-ct-app_8/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clark, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amanda Thomas v. The State. Birdie Rowan v. The State.
    Indictment — Conclusion. — The marginal note “ a true bill ” at the foot of an indictment is no part of the indictment itself, and consequently cannot constitute that phrase the conclusion of the indictment, in lieu of the antecedent formula “ against the peace and dignity of the State.”
    Appeals from the Criminal District Court of Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. G. Cook.
    The appellants were jointly indicted, but separately tried and found guilty of burglary. A term of two years in the penitentiary was assessed and adjudged against each of them ; from which judgments they appealed.
    The judgments were affirmed by this court without written opinions, and a rehearing in each case was applied for, and elicited the opinion now reported, which was delivered in the case of Amanda Thomas. . Both cases stood on the same footing throughout, so far as they are disclosed by the records.
    
      Walter L. Wilson, fox the appellants.
    
      Thomas Ball, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   Clark, J.

At a former day of this term the judgment in this case was affirmed without a written opinion, there being no statement of facts, and the only complaint upon the part of appellant being that the indictment was defective for numerous reasons assigned. Our examination of the indictment revealed a perfect indictment for the particular species of burglary charged, and it was so announced at the time the judgment of affirmance was entered.

Appellant, in a learned argument on rehearing, insists that the indictment is void because it does not conclude “ against the peace and dignity of the State,” and cites us to the indictment in support of the position. The indorsement “a true bill” on the left-hand margin of the paper constitutes no part of the indictment under our practice, and the constitutional conclusion fully appears in the indictment in this case.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Rehearing refused.