Case Name: Henry Revill v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-12-10
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 1
Docket Number: No. 5429
Parties: Henry Revill v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 1–5

Head Matter:
Henry Revill v. The State.
No. 5429.
Decided December 10, 1919.
Rehearing granted February 18, 1920.
1. —Indictment—Constitutional Law—Pleading-—Rehearing.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the indictment failed to conclude with the words “against the peace and dignity of the State,’’ and contained no equivalent declaration, the same was insufficient under the Constitution, article 5, section 12. Following: Bird v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 408; however, where it was shown on motion for rehearing that the indictment was incorrectly copied in the transcript, and that the original was not defective the motion for rehearing is granted.
2. —Same—Service of Copy of Indictment.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the trial court refused to direct service of a copy of the indictment upon defendant when requested, the same was reversible error.
3. —Same—Written Pleading—Two Days’ Delay.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the defendant claimed two days to file written pleadings after being served with copy of indictment and that he had not been served with such copy, but it appeared from the record on appeal that the defendant was then under bond he was not entitled to said two days under the terms of the statute.
Appéal from the District Court of Upshur. Tried below before the Hon. W. R. Stephens, special judge.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
C. E. Florence, for appellant.
On question of service of copy of indictment: Abrigo v. State, 15 S. W. Rep., 408; Stokes v. State, 33 id., 350; Sims v. State, 36 id., 256; Brewin v. State, 85 id., 1140; Martin v. State, 80 Texas Crim. Rep., 108, 188 S. W. Rep., 1000.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of service of copy of indictment; Rice v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 569; Keener v. State, 51 id., 590, and cases cited in opinion.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
The appellant is charged by indictment with the offense of burglary. The indictment fails to conclude with the words: 11 against the peace and dignity of the State," and contains no equivalent declaration. The Constitution, Art. 5, Sec. 12, contains the following:
"All prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Texas, and shall conclude 1 against the peace and dignity of the State. ' "
This is an imperative command, and the failure to observe it renders the indictment void. Bird v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 408; Harris' Constitution, p. 430.
The insufficiency of the indictment requires that the judgment be reversed, and the cause ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.