Williams v. State

Citations

• 12 Tex. Ct. App. 395
• 1 Tex. L. R. 222

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment — Constitutional Law.— The word “indictment” is used in section 10 of the Bill of Rights with its well-known legal signification, and, in conformity therewith, is defined by the Code of Procedure, article 419, as “the written statement of a grand jury, accusing a person therein named of some act or omission which, by law, is declared to be an offense.” To be valid, therefore, an indictment must charge all acts or omissions essential to constitute the offense of which the defendant is accused; and this being the requirement of the Constitution, the Legislature has not the power to dispense with it, nor to validate as an indictment a statement which, pretermitting the acts or omissions constituting an offense, charges the conclusion of law deducible therefrom.</p> <p>3. Same—Theft— “ Common-Sense Indictment Bill.”—The form for an indictment for theft prescribed by the' act of 1881, entitled “An act to prescribe the forms of indictments in certain cases,” charges no facts, acts' or omissions constituting the offense of theft, and is therefore repugnant to the Constitution of this State.</p> <p>3. Same — Case Stated.'— Indictment, after stating time and venue, charged that the appellant “ did fraudulently take, steal and carry away 'four hogs, of the value each of four dollars, from A. L. W.; contrary to law, and against the peace and dignity of the State.” Apxiellant excepted to the indictment because it does not charge the constituents of theft. Held, that the indictment, though it follows the form prescribed by the said act of 1881, is insufficient because it does not charge the ownership of the property, nor the want of the owner’s consent to the taking of- it, nor the intent to deprive the owner of its value, nor the intent to appropriate it to the use and benefit of the defendant. Omission of any one of these four elements of theft is fatal to the validity of the indictment.</p>