Court Opinion

ID: 9674156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:24:05.264679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.814236
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge.
Procuring is the offense; the punishment, four months’ confinement in jail and a fine of $50.
The clerk of the trial court has refused to certify as to the date the offense was alleged in the information to have been committed — that is, whether the date alleged was the 10th day of May, 1951, or the 10th day of May, 1954 — but has attached a photostatic copy of the original instrument. The original instrument is also before us.
From these it appears that the date alleged was the 10th day of May, 1951. To arrive at any other conclusion would be to indulge in unwarranted and unjustified speculation. Moreover, the state’s accusatory pleading ought to be so clear and definite that the accused is placed on notice not only of the offense with which he is charged but the date it was alleged to have been committed.
Here, the information charges that the offense was committed on a date which shows that the offense was barred under the statute of limitation, because of its commission more than three years prior to the date of the filing of the information.
This being a misdemeanor case, the two-year statute of limitation governs. Art. 181, C.C.P.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.