Case Name: GRASO v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-19
Citations: 155 S.W. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRASO v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 155
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
GRASO v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 19, 1913.)
Indictment and Information ' (§ 176 )— Vakiance — Time of Offense.
Under an information, filed November 25th, charging that defendant unlawfully carried knuckles on November 23d, evidence that the state’s witness took them from him on November 27th would not sustain a conviction, since an information cannot charge an offense to be committed in the future.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 548; Dec. Dig. § 176. ]
Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
Pero Graso was convicted of unlawfully carrying knuckles, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
W. L. Mathis, of Dallas, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAYIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying on and about his person knuckles made of some character of metal. The complaint and information were filed on the 25th day' of November, 1912, charging that on the 23d of November appellant carried the said knuckles about his person. The information was filed the same day as the complaint. The evidence for the .state, through the witness Miller, is that on the 27th day of November, 1912, he was deputy-constable of precinct No. 1, in Dallas county, and on the night of said day he and two officers were standing on the corner of Jackson and Houston streets, in the city of Dallas, where he arrested the defendant. While standing on said eorner, he saw the defendant in company with other Mexicans coming down the sidewalk; that when they approached the corner where he was standing he stopped the defendant and arrested him. Then follows what occurred between them at the time he arrested defendant, and at the time he arrested him he searched and found on him the knuckles charged in the information.
Without discussing any other feature of this ease, this conviction cannot be sustained. On the 25th of November appellant was charged with having knucks on his person on the 23d day of November, two days prior to the complaint and information. The facts show the witness Miller took the knucks from him on the 27th of November, two days after the complaint and information were filed. The evidence must show that the offense had been committed before the making of the complaint and information. The complaint cahnot charge an offense to be committed in the future.
The .-judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.