Green v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas March 20, 1886

Green v. State, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 64 (1886)

17 S.W. 262; 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 95

White

Opinion of the Court

White, Presiding Judge.

This prosecution was for burglary, and the indictment contained two counts.

1. A motion was made to quash the first count, because it did not allege the value of the property intended to be stolen. Allegation of value of property intended to be taken is not essential to the validity of an indictment for burglary. (Sullivan v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 462.)

2. It is insisted that the prosecution should have been com*69pelled to elect, on motion of defendant, upon which- count the conviction would be claimed. This position is not maintainable. (Gonzales v. The State, 5 Texas Ct. App., 584; Keeler v. The State, 15 Texas Ct. App., 111; Masterson v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 574.)

Opinion delivered March 20, 1886.

3. The motion for continuance was properly overruled. Defendant confessed his crime. There was no error in the charge of the court. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: George Green alias Bally Green v. State
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Burglary.— Indictment for burglary with intent to steal need not allege the value of the property intended to be stolen. 2. Indictment—Election .—When several counts in the same indictment are substantially for the same offense, and are introduced for the purpose of meeting the evidence as it may transpire, the State will not be required to elect on which it will rely.