Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/290794/27-tex-ct-app-47-complaint-must-be-submitted-with-information
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 01:25:56
Document Index: 573748735

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 746', 'art. 677', 'art. 431', 'art. 36', 'art. 746', 'art. 677']

27 tex ct app 47(complaint must be submitted with information) | Perjury | Witness
1150G6 Print Request: LEXSEE 03:34 PM EDT
Time of Request: July 15, 2005 Number of Lines: 125 Job Number: 1822:52948116
Client ID/Project Name: MANS Research Information: Lexsee 27 Tex. Ct. App. 47
LEXSEE 27 TEX. CT. APP. 47 Albert Wilson v. The State. No. 2532 COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS 27 Tex. Ct. App. 47; 10 S.W. 749; 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 January 16, 1889, Delivered
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the District Court of Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. H. Teichmueller. The conviction in this case was for perjury and the penalty assessed against the defendant was a term of five years in the penitentiary. The indictment alleges, in substance, that on the seventeenth day of April, 1888, one William Bean was tried in the county court of Fayette county, for carrying a pistol on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1888; that, the State having proved by several witnesses that a difficulty occurred on the night of said day, in a certain room of a certain house, between one W. Dulix and one T. Edwards, and that the said Bean, at the time of the difficulty, was present in the said certain room of the said certain house, armed with a pistol, the said Bean introduced the defendant as a witness in his behalf, and the defendant, after being sworn, testified on the said trial that the said Bean was not in the said room nor in the said house at the time the difficulty occurred, but was outside of the same, in company with him, this defendant, and others. This said testimony of the defendant is the perjury assigned. To support the allegation in the indictment that [***2] the county court had jurisdiction of the prosecution against Bean for carrying a pistol on the night of February 25, 1888, the State introduced in evidence the information of the county attorney charging Bean with that offense. The county clerk testified that he administered to the defendant the witness oath on that trial, and the attorney who represented the State testified that, on that trial, this defendant testified in behalf of Bean as charged in the indictment, which, upon the question at issue, was contradictory of evidence introduced by the prosecution against Bean. Several
witnesses testified that they attended a dance at the Doss house in LaGrange, on the night of February 25, 1888. During the evening a difficulty occurred in the side room of the said house between Willis Dulix and Tom Edwards, and during that difficulty Bean was in the said room. One witness testified positively that Bean had a pistol in his hand while in the said room, and another witness stated that he was unable to determine whether the object Bean had in his hand at that time was a pistol. Two witnesses for the defense testified that this defendant's reputation for truth and veracity was good. Another [***3] testified that, about five minutes before the shot was fired in the Doss house, he saw the defendant at the fence which surrounded the said house. DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of a decision of the District Court of Fayette County (Texas), which convicted defendant of perjury and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment in a penitentiary. OVERVIEW: The State asserted that defendant perjured himself when he testified in a friend's trial that the friend was not in the room or even the house where the difficulty occurred. The State introduced the information from the friend's case to sustain the allegation that the friend was charged with unlawfully carrying a pistol. In reversing the decision of the trial court, the court reasoned that the information was inadequate. In order to sustain the allegation, the State should have filed the information and the complaint upon which the information was based. The court reasoned that without
the complaint, the information was wholly invalid. The court found that the trial court erred in instructing the jury. The trial court failed to mention the requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 746, which dealt with the testimony required to convict on a charge of perjury. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 677 provided that it was imperative in defendant's perjury case that the charge set forth all of the law that was applicable to the case, whether asked or not. OUTCOME: The court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. CORE TERMS: perjury, judicial proceeding, indictment, credible witness, oath, confession, express provision, fundamental error, worthy of belief, law applicable, corroborated, convicted, credible, omission, charging, founded, falsity, felony LexisNexis(R) Headnotes HEADNOTES: Perjury -- Indictment -- Evidence. -- It is essential in a perjury case not only that the indictment shall allege that the court before which the judicial proceeding in which the perjury is charged to have been committed had jurisdiction of such judicial proceeding, but that fact must be established by the proof. Perjury -- Complaint -- Information -- Case Stated. -Under the law of this State, an information is insufficient for any purpose unless founded upon a complaint, filed therewith, charging an offense. The indictment in this case charged that the perjury was committed on the trial of a judicial proceeding in the county court "wherein one Bean was duly and legally charged by information," etc. To support the allegation of jurisdiction of the county
court, the State introduced in evidence the information, but not the complaint. Held, that the proof was insufficient. Perjury -- Practice -- Charge of the Court. -- To charge the jury, in felony cases, upon the law applicable to the case, whether asked or not, is under our law a duty imposed imperatively upon the trial judge. It is an express provision of our statute that "in trials for perjury no person shall be convicted except upon the testimony of two credible witnesses, or of one credible witness corroborated strongly by other evidence, as to the falsity of the defendant's statements under oath, or upon his own confession in open court." The trial being upon the plea of not guilty, and not upon confession in open court, the omission of the trial court to give in charge to the jury the substance of the above statutory provisions was fundamental error. Perjury -- Term Defined. -- A "credible witness," as used in the statute, means "one who, being competent to give evidence, is worthy of belief." COUNSEL: W. H. Ledbetter, for the appellant. W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. JUDGES: White, Presiding Judge. OPINIONBY: WHITE OPINION: [*48] [**750] White, Presiding Judge. In all cases of prosecution for perjury committed in a judicial proceeding, it must be made to appear by the allegations of the indictment that the court had
[*49] jurisdiction of the judicial proceedings (Willson's Crim. Stats., sec. 307), and it is equally important and necessary that the evidence should sustain the allegation in order to warrant a conviction. It was alleged in the indictment in this case that the judicial proceeding was a trial in the county court "wherein one Bean was duly and legally charged by information" with unlawfully carrying on or about his person a pistol, etc. To sustain this allegation the prosecution simply introduced in evidence the information. This was not sufficient. An information can not be presented until oath has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense. (Code [***4] Crim. Proc., art. 431.) This oath is called a complaint. It is the basis and foundation upon which the information rests, and is a necessary part of, and must be filed with, the information. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 36.) Without a complaint an information would be wholly invalid--would confer no jurisdiction upon the court, and would be worthless for any purpose. (Willson's Crim. Stats., sec. 1999.) It follows, then, that in order to sustain an allegation of judicial proceeding by information, not only must such information be introduced in evidence but the complaint upon which it is based or founded, must be also introduced.
Another error, fundamental in character, appears upon this record. It is a fatal omission in the charge of the court to the jury. An express provision of our statute with regard to perjury and false swearing is that "in trials for perjury no person shall be convicted except upon the testimony of two credible witnesses, or one credible witness corroborated strongly by other evidence, as to the falsity of the defendant's statement under oath, or upon his own confession in open court." (Code Crim. Proc., art. 746; Hernandez v. The State, 18 Tex. Ct. App. 134; Anderson [***5] v. The State, 24 Tex. Ct. App. 705, 7 S. W. 40; Maines v. The State, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 14, 9 S.W. 51 .) Article 746, as thus quoted, is as much a part of the law of perjury as any other found in our Penal Code relative to that crime, and where the accused has not confessed his guilt in open court, that article, or the substance thereof, should be given in charge to the jury, it being imperative in felony cases that the charge "shall distinctly set forth the law applicable to the case, whether asked or not." (Code Crim. Proc., art. 677.) It is fundamental error to fail to give such instruction. ( Washington
[*50] v. The State, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 26, 3 S.W. 228; Gartman v. The State, 16 Tex. Ct. App. 215; Willson's Crim. Stats., sec. 312.) "A credible witness," as used in that article, means "one who, being competent to give evidence, is worthy
of belief." ( Smith v. The State, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 196, 2 S.W. 542.) For the errors discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.
1150G6 ********** Print Completed ********** 03:34 PM EDT
July 15, 2005 1822:52948116 125
Documents Similar To 27 tex ct app 47(complaint must be submitted with information)
United States v. Tiffany Jones, 4th Cir. (2012)
Ui v. Bonifacio a.C. No. 3319