Taylor v. State

Citations

• 5 Tex. Ct. App. 569

Syllabus

<p>1. Verdict.—Neither bad spelling nor faulty grammar vitiates a verdict if' the sense is clear. But if the sense of a verdict of conviction be not clear, it cannot be permitted to stand.</p> <p>2. Same. — There is no such word as “guity;” and a verdict which finds the-accused “guity” is not a compliance with the statutory requirement that, the jury “must find that the defendant is either guilty or not guilty.”' “ G-uity ” is not equivalent to or idem sonans with the word guilty.</p> <p>3. Practice in this Court. — A verdict, as set out in the original transcript, found the appellant “guity,” and solely for this cause the conviction was. reversed by this court. At a subsequent day of the term the assistant attorney-general moved for a rehearing, and for a ceHiorari to bring up a. more perfect record, alleging that the original transcript falsified the-record, and that the verdict had been tampered with by changing the word guilty to “ guity.” This court allowed the motion, and the transcript brought up by the certiorari shows that the verdict found the appellant “guilty.” And the entire record being revised, and no error found, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p>