Case Name: THOMAS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-06-15
Citations: 296 S.W. 310
Docket Number: No. 11014
Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 296
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. STATE.
(No. 11014.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 15, 1927.
Hall, Scott, Casey & Hall, of Marshall, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst.- State’s Atty., both of Austin,, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is aggravated assault; punishment fixed at confinement in the county jail for a period of six months.
In a motion in arrest of judgment, the prosecution was attacked upon the ground that the complaint was not verified by affidavit. The complaint is in regular form, with the signature of J. L. Boyd and the! jurat by John E. Taylor, county attorney of Harrison county. Upon the hearing, Boyd testified that he was the person who made the complaint, and that he signed it, but was not sworn by' the officer who took the complaint or any other officer, and that he had never made affidavit before any one as to the contents of the complaint. This was not' controverted in any particular. By statute, the complaint is made imperative as a basis for the prosecution by information. See article 415, C. C. P. 1925; Vernon's Ann. Tex. C. C. P., vol. 1, p. 313; Stacy v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 258 S. W. 475; Day v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 286 S. W. 1107. See, also, article 763, C. C. P. 1925, touching the office of the motion in arrest of judgment. In the absence of a written complaint duly verified, the prosecution cannot be maintained.
The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.