Williams v. State

Citations

• 24 Tex. Ct. App. 69
• 5 S.W. 838
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 165

Syllabus

<p>1. Burq-IiARY—Indictment.—1The conviction in this case was for burglary. It was had under an indictment which charged conjointly the offense of burglary and theft. The allegations were that defendant did burglariously enter the house with the intent to commit theft, and that he did commit theft of certain personal property. The indictment proceeded to allege, not the elements of the theft which it charged he intended to commit, but the elements of the theft which he did commit. The contention of the appellant is that the indictment is insufficient to support the conviction for burglary, because it failed to allege the elements of the intended theft. Meld, that, alleging the elements of the theft actually committed, the indictment is sufficient to support the conviction for burglary. See the statement of the case for the indictment in extenso.</p> <p>2. Same.—If the purpose of the pleader had been merely to charge a burglary with intent to commit an offense, and not to charge burglary and the actual commission of the offense, then the indictment would be insufficient unless it alleged the elements of the intended offense.</p> <p>3. Same.—The rule is, that if burglary and theft be charged in the same count, and the party charged be convicted, the theft will be included in-the burglary, and no judgment can be rendered for the theft. In such case, however, the conviction.for burglary will bar a subsequent prosecution for the theft.</p>