Court Opinion

ID: 9764387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:20:23.892629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:56.198239
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge,
(dissenting).
The indictment contains no allegation that immediately before it was cut the telephone wire was capable of being used for the transmission of telephone communication, yet the court in his charge properly, I believe, instructed the jury that even though they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant cut and injured a telephone wire, as alleged in the indictment, “before you can find the defendant guilty you must further find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt that immediately before such action of defendant, if any, said wire was then and there capable of being used for the transmission of *278telephone communication; and if you do not so find and believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant * * *.'
Art. 397 C.C.P. provides “Everything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to prove.”
Cutting a dead wire would not constitute an offense under Art. 1334 P.C. The cutting or injury to the wire must be such as to interfere with the transmission of messages along the telephone line. S.W. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Priest, 72 S.W. 241.
The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained.