TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sullivan v. State

J. P. Sullivan v. the State

Sullivan v. State, 69 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 7, 1934
Docket
No. 16527.
Judges
Christian
Citations
69 S.W.2d 65125 Tex. Crim. 4751934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 143
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Christian

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is swindling; the punishment, a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in jail for two days.

The complaint contains no jurat of the officer administering the oath. Notwithstanding appellant filed a motion to quash the complaint, the jurat was not amended. After verdict appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment. Upon this motion the county attorney testified that he in fact administered the oath to the party making the complaint, but failed to complete the jurat by signing his name thereto. At no time was the jurat amended and the complaint appears in this record without the jurat of the county attorney. It is well settled that the complaint is incomplete and insufficient to authorize the information unless it is accompanied by a jurat of the officer administering the oath. Stacy v. State, 258 S. W., 475 . An amendment of the complaint is permissible; but where the fault consists in the absence of the officer’s jurat, to authorize the amendment there must be proof that the oath was administered. Stacy v. State, supra. In the present case, as already pointed out, the jurat was at no time amended. It follows that a reversal of the judgment must be ordered. The state’s attorney before this court confesses error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stanley v. State158 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Stanley v. State158 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Stacy v. State, 258 S.W. 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list