Golden v. State
Steve Golden v. the State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— The conviction is for unlawfully operating a pool hall; punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars.
Before announcing ready for trial, appellant requested that he be furnished with a copy of the information against him. The bill shows that he had not been previously furnished one. The law 'declares that “he or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall *554 be given at as early a day as possible.” (Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 554.) There is no impediment in the instant ease to the com pliance with this statute. It required no delay of the trial. It was the imperative duty of the court to have the copy demanded furnished. Venn v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 638 ; Revill v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 1 ; Mayes v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 512 ; Wray v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 632 ; Matheson v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 208 , 241 S. W. Rep., 1013 . The enactment of the statute was doubtless to enforce the provision of the Bill of Rights wherein it is said tha t ‘ one accused of crime shall have the right- to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him and to have a copy thereof.” Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10.
The court was not warranted in refusing this demand. Because of its refusal, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The enactment of [now article 25.04] was doubtless to enforce the provision of the Bill of Rights wherein it is said that one accused of crime ‘shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.’ Const. art. 1, § 10.”)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.