Opinion · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Pitt v. State
172 Tex. Crim. 637
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1962-11-21
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- fatal variance when the information alleged that the worthless check was given to "Sue Simpson,” but the proof showed that this person was really named "Reva Sue Simpkins”; conviction reversed and case remanded
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pitt v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
The offense is defrauding with a worthless check in the sum of $47.51; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $250.
The complaint and information alleged that the check was given to Sue Simp son. The evidence shows that it was given to Reva Sue Simp kins. The surnames are not idem sonans and the state concedes that the variance is fatal. Brown v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 158 S.W. 533; Vestal v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 223, 283 S.W.2d 955; White v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 234 S.W.2d 876; Burks v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 225 S.W. 1094; Loven v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 167 S.W.2d 515.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.