Court Opinion

ID: 9764588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:28:10.554362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.576878
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant calls our attention to the fact that we did not dis*247cuss his Bill of Exception No. 7. Such was directed to the failure to grant a new trial because the state had not proven the year in which the offense was committed.
We have again examined the statement of facts with this complaint in mind. The rule is well expressed as follows:
“While it is not incumbent upon the state to prove the exact date named in the indictment, yet proof that the offense was committed at such time as that the prosecution would not be barred by the statute of limitations is necessary.” Smith v. State, 124 Tex. Cr. Rep. 686, 65 S. W. (2d) 309, and Womack v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. Rep. 551, 170 S. W. (2d) 478.
The statute of limitations for the offense involved is two years. 181 C. C. P.
The complaint herein was filed on September 5, 1951. The trial was had on October 15, 1951.
Officer Alexander, who arrested appellant while he was in the act of committing the offense in question, did not give the year in which the same occurred, but stated that he made the arrest on September 2nd. We do find, however, from the officer’s testimony, that he had been on the police force only since November 1, 1949. It is, therefore, conclusively shown that the complaint was filed within two years from the time of the commission of the offense, and the proof satisfied the rule heretofore set forth.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.