Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CARL MOORE v. THE STATE.

Burglary — Indictment — Private Residence.

Indictment charging burglary of a private residence must contain the words "occupied and actually used."

LATTIMORE, JUDGE. —

Conviction for burglary of a private residence; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

But one question seems to call for discussion. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment upon the ground that same failed to allege that the private residence charged to have been burglarized, was occupied and "actually used" as a residence by some person named, at the time of the alleged burglary. The motion was overruled. In this we think the learned trial judge in error. Jones v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 100; Johnson v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Lewis v. State, 54 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Geary v. State, 281 S.W. 1061.

Since the rendition of the opinion in Jones v. State, supra, this court seems to have uniformly adhered to the rule there laid down that the words "occupied and actually used" were so descriptive of the character of the residence as to make it necessary that they be used in the indictment charging a burglary of a private residence. Following the rule that such indictment as the one before us is bad, the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MOORE v. STATE
(May 14, 1930)