Kitchen v. State

Citations

• 26 Tex. Ct. App. 165
• 9 S.W. 461
• 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 174

Syllabus

<p>1. Perjury—Indictment.—If it specifically charges the materiality of the matter assigned for perjury, such allegation, in an indictment for perjury, is sufficient in this respect, notwithstanding it does not literally follow the approved form. See the statement of the case for the charging part of an indictment for perjury which, substantially conforming to number 122 of Willson’s Criminal Forms, is held sufficient.</p> <p>2. Same—Evidence.—The indictment charges that the perjury was committed upon the trial of M. and J., for the murder of J. J. The State introduced in evidence a separate judgment rendered against J., to which the defense objected upon the ground that it did not appear from that judgment that M. and J. were jointly tried, but that J. was tried alone. As matter of fact, M. and J. were jointly placed upon trial, and when the State closed its evidence the court directed the acquittal of J. and the trial of M. was proceeded with, the consequence being the return of two verdicts and the rendition of two judgments in the case. The statement of defendant, assigned as perjury, was made during the progress of the joint trial. Held, that the judgment against J. was properly admitted in evidence.</p> <p>3. Same—Practice.—There is no provision of law which requires that the record, even in a murder case, shall show that the trial court ordered the acquittal of an accused on trial, and that sueh order can not be shown by parol; and no sueh doctrine can be held to apply to a perjury case.</p> <p>4. Same—Charge of the Court.—It was not essential that the trial court should have charged the jury in this ease that the statement assigned as perjury must relate to a past or present event; inasmuch as the indictment itself shows that the statement did relate to a past event.</p> <p>5. Same.—On a trial for perjury, the trial court instructed the jury, in effect, to acquit the defendant if they had a reasonable doubt whether the statement made by him, and assigned as