Chivarrio v. State

Citations

• 15 Tex. Ct. App. 330
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6

Syllabus

<p>1. Murder—Pleading.—Indictment for murder may, in a single count, and w'thout duplicity, charge the accused with the murder of two or more persons by the same act.</p> <p>2. Same—Jurisdiction—Charge of the Court.—The indictment laid the venue of the offense in W. county, and it was in that county that the prosecution was maintained and the conviction secured. The evidence, however, as stated in a bill of exceptions, shows that it, was actually committed within the limits of E. county, an unorganized county attached to W. county for judicial purposes. Under this state of ease, the trial court charged the jury as follows: “You are instructed that the county of E. is attached to W. for judicial purposes. If, then, from the evidence, you find that the crime of which the defendant stands accused was actually committed in E. county, instead of the county of W., and you shall believe beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, that the defendant was the person who committed it, the proof of the venue will be sufficient to warrant you to find him guilty as charged in the indictment.” Held, error, inasmuch as though W. county could properly try and convict one guilty of an offense within the separate territorial extent of E. county, still the State was not absolved from charging the fact that the offense was committed within said .unorganized county, attached to W. county for judicial purpqpes. But see the opinion in entenso on tile question.</p> <p>3. Same.—Indictment may allege an offense to have been committed in either of the contiguous counties, if in fact it was committed within four hundred yards of their common boundary line.</p>