Court Opinion

ID: 9667088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:48.457413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.793130
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, supported by argument of able counsel, it is urged that we were in error in upholding the indictment as sufficiently charging the offense to have been committed in Cass County. Appellant relies upon Allen v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 606, 190 SW(2) 569, and Steinman v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 198, 220 SW (2d) 887, as upholding his contention.
In Allen v. State, supra, it was held that the information sufficiently alleged that Allen was intoxicated in Dallas County, but failed to allege that the “drunk driving was done in Dallas County.” As pointed out by Judge Graves, it was not alleged that the accused “then and there” drove the car.
In Steinman v. State, supra, there was no information filed and the complaint was held insufficient because it failed to allege that affiant had good reason to believe and did believe that the accused committed the offense. What was said regarding the averment as to where the offense was committed was quoted from the state’s brief and was not necessary to a decision as to the sufficiency of the complaint.
We remain convinced that our holding in Baggett v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 618, 229 SW (2) 801, and Johnson v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 380, 194 SW (2) 771, wherein similar indictments were held sufficient, is correct. Insofar as it may hold to the contrary, the Steinman case, supra, is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.