Bond v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1887 |
| Citation | 4 S.W. 580 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BOND v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
This conviction was for the burglary, by force, of the outhouse of W. N. and H. P. Bond, with intent to steal therefrom 15 bushels of shelled oats. A term of two years in the penitentiary was the penalty assessed. For all practical purposes, the opinion sufficiently states the case.
Fly & Davidson, for appellant. Walter Weaver, for the State.
When the oats alleged to have been stolen were found in defendant's crib, defendant told the searching party that he had bought the oats from one Jim Bond, Kemp Bond, and Charles T. Rather; that, in the months of August and September just preceding the alleged burglary, (October 1st,) Jim Bond had purchased as much as 11 bushels of oats of Rather, most of which he let appellant have. On this state of facts there were clearly two theories, — for the state, that the oats found were taken from the burglarized premises; for the defense, that defendant had purchased them. The only defense relied upon, as we read the evidence, was a purchase. This theory was not directly submitted as part of the case in the charge of the court to the jury. It is true that the court properly instructed the jury with regard to explanations made by a defendant when found in possession of property recently stolen, (Hernandez v. State, 18 Tex. App. 134; Windham v. State, 19 Tex. App. 413;) but the defendant denied that the property was stolen, and, on the contrary, positively claimed to have purchased it. It is a well-settled rule in criminal practice that "a defendant is entitled to have a distinct and affirmative presentation to the jury by the charge of the court of the issues which arise upon the evidence, to the end that the jury shall not ignore his defenses, but may be guided to the proper verdict if they find his evidence true; and, however improbable his evidence may seem to the trial court, it is his right to have its truth or falsity determined by the jury, without being forestalled by the court." White v. State, 18 Tex. App. 57; Irvine v. State, 20 Tex. App. 13; Herron v. State, Id. 296.
Because the charge of the court failed to present the law pertinent to the only defense relied upon by appellant on his trial in the lower court, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
1. Reported by Messrs. Jackson & Jackson, official reporters of the Texas court of appeals.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...clear to us that the court has committed error in this matter. "We will not refer to the authorities at length. However, Bond v. State, 23 Tex. App. 180, 4 S. W. 580, is directly in point. In that case, the defendant made a statement, when he was found in possession of certain oats alleged ......
-
State v. Moore
...circumstantial evidence. Thompson on Trials, secs. 2508-2518; Fuller v. State, 7 S.W. 330; Guajardo v. State, 7 S.W. 331; Bond v. State, 4 S.W. 580; Schuler State, 4 S.W. 581. (10) The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. Taylor v. State, 18 Tex.App. 489; McIntosh v. State, 18......
-
Pye v. State
...15 Tex. App. 84; White v. State, 18 Tex. App. 57; Burkhard v. State, 18 Tex. App. 599; Irvine v. State, 20 Tex. App. 12; Bond v. State, 23 Tex. App. 180, 4 S. W. 580; Smith v. State, 24 Tex. App. 290, 6 S. W. 40; Williams v. State, 24 Tex. App. 342, 6 S. W. 531; Thompson v. State, 24 Tex. A......
-
White v. State
...possession of recently stolen property, which ignores the defense of purchase relied upon by the accused, is insufficient. Bond v. State, 23 Tex. App. 180, 4 S. W. 580; Shuler v. State, 23 Tex. App. 182, 4 S. W. 581; Hays v. State, 30 Tex. App. 472, 17 S. W. 1063. Almost the precise questio......