Hirshfield v. State

Citations

• 11 Tex. Ct. App. 207

Syllabus

<p>1. Swindling.— The Code of Procedure, article 794, provides that “ when money, property, or other articles of value enumerated in the definition of swindling are obtained in such manner as to come within the meaning of theft or some other offense known to the law, the rules herein prescribed with regard to swindling shall not be understood to take any such case out of the operation of the law which defines such other offense.” Held, that the effect of this provision is to invalidate an indictment for swindling if the allegations thereof charge facts which constitute a different offense.</p> <p>2. Same.— Appellant was prosecuted and convicted for swindling. The gravamen of the accusation was the procurement of money by means of a forged indorsement on his own check, and the indictment, though obviously framed on the definition of swindling, charged all the constituents of knowingly uttering a forged instrument; wherefore the defense excepted to it because, under the operation of article 794 of the Code of Procedure, the offense charged was not swindling but the uttering of a forged instrument. Held, that the exception was well taken and should have been sustained.</p> <p>3. Jeopakdy.— Section 14, article 1, of the State Constitution ordains that “ No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty.” Held, that the term “ same offense ” as here used does not signify the same offense eo nomine, but the same criminal act or omission. See the opinion in extenso on the subject of jeopardy.</p>