W. C. Thompson v. State

Citations

• 16 Tex. Ct. App. 159
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 87

Syllabus

<p>1. Disturbing Religious Worship—Indictment.—There must be some particularity, or what the law calls certainty, in an indictment. The particular act of which the State complains must be set forth in plain and intelligible words, so that the party who is accused may know what he is called upon to answer, and may be able to prepare for his defense. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with wilfully disturbing a congregation assembled for religious worship, but falls to allege the means or manner by which he disturbed the congregation. Held, that the indictment is bad, for uncertainty, wherefore the motion to quash the same should have been sustained.</p> <p>2. Same.—While in charging the offense of disturbing religious worship it .. necessary that the means or manner of disturbance be alleged, it is not essential that the indictment enter into details. A general statement, as that it was effected by loud talking, swearing, whistling, etc., as the case might be, is sufficient.</p> <p>3. Same.—The statute in force when the case of Kindred v. The State, 33 Texas, 67, was decided, in which an indictment similar to this was held sufficient, and the statute now in force (Penal Code, Article 280), are materially different, and the Kindred case is no longer authority upon the question.</p>