# Shackelford v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 4, 1974 · 516 S.W.2d 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2459451

## Case

- **Full name:** E. E. SHACKELFORD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 4, 1974
- **Citations:** 516 S.W.2d 180
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Douglas
- **Judges:** Douglas
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2459451

## Opinion text

OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for criminal libel under Articles 1269 through 1292, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. (1925).
1
The jury assessed punishment of one year in the county jail.
The record contains no statement of facts. Appellant represented himself at trial and apparently did not request a court reporter.
The appellant’s main contentions are that the libel statutes are unconstitutional as vi-olative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Although there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of the criminal libel statutes, it is unnecessary to reach that question.
The complaint upon which this conviction was founded contains a fundamental defect. The jurat on the complaint is defective because it was undated. The jurat to the complaint reads as follows:
“Sworn to and subscribed before me by Mike Harrell on this _ Day of March, A.D. 1973.”
To be sufficient, the jurat must be dated. An undated jurat vitiates the complaint. Article 2.04, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8 , 66 S.W.2d 695 (1933); Brown v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.App. 527 , 294 S.W.2d 722 (1956); and see also Heredia v. State, 468 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Since there can be no valid information in the absence of a valid complaint, a complaint without a proper jurat will not support an information. Articles 15.04 and 21.22, V.A.C.C.P.; Carpenter v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 99 , 218 S.W.2d 207 (1949). Therefore, the conviction is void.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
1
. Articles 1269 through 1292, V.A.P.C. (1925), have been repealed in toto by the new Penal Code effective January 1, 1974, Acts 1973, 63rd Legislature, Chapter 399, Section 3, Page 994.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2459451. Public record. Not legal advice.