Case ID: sw_253/html/0289-01.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

BENNETT v. STATE.
    (No. 7195.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 27, 1923.)
    1. False pretenses <§=»31— Indictment for swindling held to show reliance on representations.
    An indictment for swindling, including the averment that defendant, by means of fraudulent representations, induced the injured party to deliver to defendant a bank check, held, not defective because of absence of an averment showing that the representations were relied upon.
    2. Criminal law <®=>627(2) — That accused was on bail when Indicted does not excuse refusal to furnish copy of Indictment on his demand.
    Under Const, art. 1, § 10, and Code Cr. Proc. arts. 551-553, as to right of accused to have a copy of the charge against him, the fact that accused is on bail at the time of his indictment, while rendering it unnecessary that he be served with a certified copy of the indictment, does not relieve the court of the duty of furnishing accused a copy of the indictment when demanded before trial, when accused has, not by previous words or conduct, waived his right to demand it.
    Appeal from District Court, Gregg County ; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    Roy Bennett was convicted of swindling, and he appeals.
    Reversed'and remanded.
    Florence, Florence & McClelland and T. H. Briggs, all of Gilmer, for- appellant.
    W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is swindling; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of seven years. The insufficiency of the indictment is urged because of its alleged failure to contain an averment showing that the injured party relied upon the alleged false representations. The indictment contains this averment:

“ * * ⅞ jjjd then and there unlawfully and by means of false pretenses and device, fraudulent representations then and there knowingly and fraudulently made by him to D. Bruner, did induce the said D. Bruner to deliver to Mm, the said Bennett, and the said Roy Bennett did then and there and hy the means aforesaid acquire from the said D. Bruner, a certain bank check of the value óf $500, the same being the personal and movable property of the said D. Bruner, with the intent to appropriate the same to the use of him, the said Roy Bennett,” etc.

This part of the indictment is in accord with the form suggested by Judge Will-son in his Criminal Forms, and has often been approved by this court. The words italicized are deemed equivalent to an averment that the representation was relied on. This has been expressly held. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 2637; Baker v. State, 14 Tex. App. 338; Fairy v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 397, 97 S. W. 700. The complaint of the indictment that it does not show reliance upon the fraudulent pretenses cannot be sustained.

It is made to appear by bill of exceptions No. 2 that before announcement of ready for trial appellant informed the court that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment and requested that a copy of the indictment be furnished him. The motion made and sworn to contained the statement that he had never been furnished with a copy of the indictment. The bill is qualified with the statement that the appellant had been on bail. In refusing to furnish the copy of the indictment the learned trial judge committed error. It has often been decided that by virtue of article 1, § 10, of the Constitution, one is entitled to a copy of the charge against him. If he is on bail at the time of his indictment it is not necessary that he be formally served with a certified copy of the indictment, but this does not relieve the court of the duty to furnish the accused. a copy of the indictment when demanded before trial, when he has not by previous words or conduct waived his right to demand it. ' See Code of Crim. Proc. arts. 551-553; also Martin v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 188 S. W. 1000; Revill v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 218 S. W. 1044; Venn v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 633, 218 S. W. 1060; Mayes v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 222 S. W. 571; McDuff v. State, 4 Tex. App. 58. ■

The other questions raised are not likely to occur on another trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      <@=»For other cases see same to£ic and KBY-NXJMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes