Court Opinion

ID: 9857375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:32:28.123045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:23.660707
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
To sustain this conviction it was essential that the State offer proof for the jury’s consideration that the offenses occurred within a 12 months period next preceding the filing of the indictment.
The State has filed an extensive brief in which are cited a number of cases dealing with the construction of instruments and pleadings or a collateral attack thereupon, but not a single case in which the question of the sufficiency of the evidence was being discussed. So at most what went before the jury was a stamp on the back of the indictment. The indictment bears the name, “Mrs. Thornton, Clerk of Court”, as a witness, and yet she was not called. We should not be asked to affirm a conviction without proper proof of an integral element of the case when proof was available and not offered.
The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.