34 Tex. 39 | Tex. | 1871
The appellant in this case was indicted in the district court for the theft of a mule, and was tried, convicted and
Article 2863, Paschal’s Digest, in defining what is necessary to constitute a good indictment, reads as follows: “ It must show that the place where the offense was committed is within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is presented.” And article 2864 says: “ It is not necessary to state in an indictment anything which it is not necessary to prove;” while article 3105 declares “ that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence.” The only logical construction of these clauses of the statute is that no person shall be convicted of crime prosecuted by indictment, unless that indictment charges the offense to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court where the indictment was presented; and that on the trial the offense must be proven to have been committed within the jurisdiction as charged, or the defendant must be presumed to be innocent. Under our statute a defendant is not compelled to plead at all, nor make any defense, and yet the State
We 'think there was error in the judgment of the court below, and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.