Case Name: Steve Golden v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-08
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 553
Docket Number: No. 7064
Parties: Steve Golden v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
Steve Golden v. The State.
No. 7064.
Decided November 8, 1922.
Misdemeanor — Pool Hall — Information—Copy of Information.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully operating a pool hall, the defendant, before announcing ready for trial, requested that he be furnished with a copy of the information against him, the record showing that he had not been so furnished with one, which the court refused, the same was reversible error. Following Venn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 638, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. Giles P. Lester.
Appeal from a conviction of operating a pool hall; penalty, fine of $50.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— The conviction is for unlawfully operating a pool hall; punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars.
Before announcing ready for trial, appellant requested that he be furnished with a copy of the information against him. The bill shows that he had not been previously furnished one. The law 'declares that "he or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall be given at as early a day as possible." (Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 554.) There is no impediment in the instant ease to the com pliance with this statute. It required no delay of the trial. It was the imperative duty of the court to have the copy demanded furnished. Venn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 638; Revill v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 1; Mayes v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 512; Wray v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 632; Matheson v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 208, 241 S. W. Rep., 1013. The enactment of the statute was doubtless to enforce the provision of the Bill of Rights wherein it is said that ' one accused of crime shall have the right- to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him and to have a copy thereof." Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10.
The court was not warranted in refusing this demand. Because of its refusal, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.