Opinion
No. 14213.
Delivered April 1, 1931. Rehearing Denied April 29, 1931. Reported in 37 S.W.2d 1037.
1. — Robbery — Indictment.
In prosecution for robbery by taking a check from the owner, the motion to quash based upon the ground that the check was not sufficiently described was properly overruled.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.2. — Robbery — Indictment.
In prosecution for robbery by taking a check from the owner, motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the check was not particularly described was properly overruled since a particular description was not required but the general description given was sufficient.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris County. Tried below before the Hon. Whit Boyd, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for robbery; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
J. S. Bracewell and Chas. B. Spiner, both of Houston, for appellant.
O'Brien Stevens, Crim. Dist Atty., and E. T. Branch, both of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
The record is before us without a statement of facts. In the absence of a statement of facts we find one question calling for review. Appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the check alleged to have been taken from the injured party was not sufficiently described. An examination of the indictment discloses that the description of the check is substantially the same as that contained in the indictment in the case of Freddie Fuller v. State, 118 Tex.Crim. Rep., 37 S.W.2d 1034, this day decided. In that case we held the description sufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
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.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
In the light of the precedents cited in the original opinion in Fuller v. State, 118 Tex.Crim. Rep., 37 S.W.2d 1034, namely, Fulshear v. State, 59 Tex.Crim. Rep., 128 S.W. 134; Pye v. State, 74 Tex.Crim. Rep., 171 S.W., S.W., 741; Calentine v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. Rep., 94 S.W. 1061; Patrick v. State, 50 Tex.Crim. Rep., 98 S.W. 840; Holland v. State, 110 Tex.Crim. Rep., 10 S.W.2d 561, the opinion is expressed that the description of the property in the indictment is sufficient. Mr. Branch, in his Ann. Tex. P. C., p. 1312, sec. 2424, citing many precedents, to some of which reference is made below, declares that a particular description of the property stolen is not required, but that a general description is sufficient; and that a written instrument need not be set out by its tenor. See Dignowitty v. State, 17 Tex. 521; Gaines v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 77 S.W. 10.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.