Case ID: sw_136/html/0467-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GREEN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 5, 1911.)
    Indictment and Information (§ 41) — Complaint— Sufficiency.
    A complaint is insufficient to sustain an information, where it states that complainant has “reason to believe,” etc., instead of stating that he has reason to believe and does believe, as required by Code Cr. Proe. 1895, art. 257.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 423; Dec. Dig-. § 41.]
    ' Appeal from Brown County Court; A. M. Brumfield, Judge.
    Jerry Green was convicted of fornication, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Harrison & Way man, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was prosecuted by complaint and information on two counts, one for adultery and the other fornication. He was convicted for fornication; that being the only ground submitted by the court in the charge.

The complaint, upon which the information was based, was by John Champion, who swore: “I have reason to believe that on or about June 1, 1910, in Brown county, Texas, Jerry Green, an unmarried man, did unlawfully have habitual intercourse,” etc. A motion was made in the lower court to quash the complaint and information, because the information did not charge, in the terms of the statute, that the party making the complaint stated: “I have reason to believe and do believe.” The words “and do believe” were omitted. The statute (article 257, Code Cr. Proc.) requires this, and this court has held, in Tompkins v. State, 77 S. W. 800, and Smith v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 76 S. W. 436, that this is necessary. The motion should have been sustained, and the information on the charge of fornication should have been quashed.

We would dismiss this case, but for the fact that the other charge of adultery is still in the case. If the state desires to proceed to charge the appellant with fornication, it certainly must file a new complaint and information.

The cause is reversed and remanded.