Clayton v. State
Clayton v. State
Opinion of the Court
This prosecution is based upon the following
provisions of our Penal Code, viz.: “ If any person shall convey into any jail any disguise, instrument, arms, or anything useful to aid any prisoner in escaping, with intent to facilitate the escape of a prisoner lawfully detained in such jail on an accusation of .felony, or shall, in any other manner calculated to effect the object, aid in the escape of a prisoner legally confined in jail, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years.” Pasc. Dig., art. 1946.
The indictment charges “ that George Spears and Sweet Clayton, on the eighteenth day of the month of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-eight, in said county of Uvalde, and state of Texas, with force and arms, and with the fraudulent, felonious, and unlawful intent to facilitate the escape of John Woods and Lark Clayton, prisoners lawfully detained and confined in the county jail of Uvalde County, Texas, on the charge of felony, to-wit, the crime of theft of a cow, did then and there fraudulently, feloniously, and unlawfully convey, and caused to be conveyed, into said jail of Uvalde County a certain instrument, to-wit, a file, said file being then and there an instrument useful to aid the prisoners, the said John Woods and Lark Clayton, in escaping from the said county jail of Uvalde County, in which said jail they, the said John Woods and Lark Clayton, were then and there
Now, whilst this indictment may be obnoxious to the criticism that it is tautological and inartistically drawn, we are of opinion that it sufficiently charges the offense under the statute. The words “ and attempt to escape,” in the last clause, as copied above, and which are objected to in defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment, are mere surplusage, and may be stricken out without affecting the substance or sense of the indictment. A further reference to the beginning portion of the charge above set out will fully meet the other objection of counsel urged on the motion in arrest, to wit, that the intent must be to facilitate, and should be so charged. This the indictment does most explicitly.
The charge of the court, which was otherwise unexceptionable, presents an error which will necessitate a reversal of the case. In the fourth subdivision of the charge the jury are told that “ it is admitted by the defendant’s counsel that John Woods and Lark Clayton were prisoners legally confined in the county jail of Uvalde County, on an accusation of felony, to-wit, theft of a cow.” As was said in the case of Nels v. The State: “The prisoner’s counsel had no authority to make any statement or admission to supply the place or have the force of evidence against him. No confession of theirs could bind or affect him. Their admissions could not in law prejudice or affect his
For this error in the charge of the court, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.