Case Name: NICHOLS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-02-05
Citations: 208 S.W. 931
Docket Number: No. 5277
Parties: NICHOLS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 208
Pages: 931–931

Head Matter:
NICHOLS v. STATE.
(No. 5277.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 5, 1919.)
1. Criminal Law <§==>1099 (1) — Statement oe Facts — Approval by Trial Judge.
Statement of facts found in the record, but not approved by the trial judge, cannot be considered.
2. Criminal Law <§=>214^-Adding Jurat to Complaint — Oral Motion eor Amendment.
Although jury had been sworn, where oral motion to amend was made in open court and testimony in conection with it showed that officer before whom affidavit was made complied with law, court did not err in permitting complaint to be amended by adding thereto the jurat; it being unnecessary to make motion in writing.
Appeal from Ivaufman County Court; J. P. Coon, Judge.
Jim Nichols was convicted of carrying a pistol in violation of law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Lee B. Stroud, of Kaufman, for appellant. E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol in violation of the law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.
The statement of facts found in the record is not approved by the trial judge; therefore cannot be considered.
There is a bill of exceptions reciting that after announcement of ready for trial and after the jury was sworn it was discovered that the jurat to the complaint was in some way omitted. The prosecuting officer moved the court for permission to amend the complaint by . adding the jurat. The officer before whom the affidavit was made was present and introduced, and under his testimony the court permitted the jurat to be added. Under the authorities we are of opinion,that the court was within the law in permitting this amendment. Appellant, we suppose, emphasizes this fact because the motion to amend was made orally instead of in writing. We do not believe that it was necessary that it should be in writing. The motion was made in open court, and the testimony admitted in connection with it showed the officer complied with the law as found by the trial court. This, we think, might be done orally; at least we so understand the decisions. Flournoy v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. B. 29, 100 S. W. 151; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 361, 16 S. W. 253; Sanders v. State, 52 Tex. Or. K. 156, 105 S. W. 803.
There being no error on the part of the court in permitting, the addition of the jurat under the circumstances, we think the judgment ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
<®=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes