Reed v. State

Citations

• 14 Tex. Ct. App. 662
• 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 225

Syllabus

<p>1. Burglary—Indictment.—It is not essential to the sufficiency of an indictment for burglary that the entry should be charged to have been made “feloniously ” or “burglariously.” See the opinion in extenso, for the principle discussed.</p> <p>2. Same.—It is not necessary that an indictment for burglary should allege (after negativing the consent of the occupant) that the entry was made without the consent of any one authorized to give consent. The consent of any other party than the occupant, when such other party is claimed to have authority to give consent, is purely matter of defense.</p> <p>3. Same.—The mere entry of a house without an intent to commit a felony or the crime of theft, or without the commission of such offense after entry, is not burglary. Hence it is necessary, in order to charge the offense of burglary, that an indictment should describe the particular felony or theft intended to be committed, with all its statutory ingredients. Wherefore an indictment for burglary to commit theft of certain property, which fails to charge the taking, or the intent to take, the property from the possession of the alleged injured party, or from the possession of some one holding it for him, is bad. See the opinion in extenso on the question</p>