Case Name: Hub Brannan v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-03-24
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 169
Docket Number: No. 5725
Parties: Hub Brannan v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 169–169

Head Matter:
Hub Brannan v. The State.
No. 5725.
Decided March 24, 1920.
Theft—Indictment—Grand Jury.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft it developed on appeal from the record that the grand jury who found the indictment was empanelled and acted without authority of law, the indictment was a nullity, and the judgment must he reversed and the cause dismissed, following Wright v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 434.
Appeal from the County Court of Hill. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Burns.
Appeal from the conviction of petty theft; penalty, a fine of $30 and confinement in the county jail for ten days.
The opinion states the case.
Dupres & Crenshaw, for the appellant.
Cited: State v. Smith, 19 Texas Crim. Rep., 95; Ex Parte Love, 93 S. W. Rep., 551; Wright v. State, 217 S. W. Rep., 152.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This conviction was for misdemeanor theft. There are several questions presented in the record, but these are not discussed for the reason that the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed because of want of a legal in-. dictment. There is in the record what purports to be an indictment preferred by the grand jury, but the facts show that the grand jury so presenting it was an illegal one, one empanelled and acting without authority of law. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the facts, and circumstances which constituted the grand jury an illegal one and their act void. These matters have all been fully stated and the whole matter reviewed in Wright v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 434, 217 S. W. Rep., 152. Wright was indicted by the same grand jury as was appellant and under the same circumstances. In Wright's case the whole matter was reviewed and the authorities discussed. We find no reason to change the views there expressed and those previously decided which form the basis of the Wright opinion.
Under the authority of Wright v. State, supra, this judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.