O'Brien v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4895.) |
| Citation | 201 S.W. 179 |
| Parties | O'BRIEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Wichita County Court; Harvey Harris, Judge.
Ethel O'Brien was convicted, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
T. F. Hunter, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of keeping a disorderly house. The state's case depends upon the evidence of the witness Maude Davis and evidence showing the general reputation of the house. In substance, she stated she was at defendant's house, and had been for two days and three nights when appellant was arrested; that she had an understanding with appellant when she went there that she was to stay and receive men for money and divide revenues, and at that time appellant had two other women and five men boarders. At the time she went to this house she says:
"I had an understanding with her [appellant] and she with me that I was to prostitute myself there in that house; that I was to receive men and to charge them for their relations, and was to divide the money with Mrs. O'Brien."
She collected $6 from three men while there, and on the third morning she had trouble with appellant, who asked her for half of the money she had received, and she refused to give it; that appellant had agreed to give her $2.50 a week for work she did around the house, and when appellant demanded this a fight started. She testified to other facts showing there were other men and women there, three girls besides herself. Further details of her testimony are deemed unnecessary. All of her testimony was emphatically denied by such parties as she named and could be used on the trial.
A question suggested for reversal is that the court failed to charge on accomplice testimony, and refused to give special requested instructions submitting that question in the charge. Appellant complied strictly with the law in objecting to the court's charge, and in presenting his special requested instructions. We are of opinion the court was in error. Such charge ought to have been given. The facts called for it, and appellant brought herself strictly within the law with reference to presenting this question. Dooms v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 206, 178 S. W. 334; Denman v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 178 S. W. 332; Williams v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 399, 110 S. W. 63; Tracey v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 495, 61 S. W. 127; Stone v. State, 22 Tex. App. 185, 2 S. W. 585...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. State
...C. C. P. 1925. Under the law, it is imperative that the jury be instructed in accord with this statutory provision. O'Brien v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 39, 201 S. W. 179; Clark v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 585, 218 S. W. 366; Vernon's Ann. Tex. C. C. P. 1925, vol. 2, p. 795, note 20. The court omi......
-
Ponder v. State
...of them testified to having assisted in the operation of the house. The testimony of these three made them accomplices. O'Brien v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 39, 201 S. W. 179; Kelley v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 296 S. W. 531; Clark v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 585, 218 S. W. 366. It does not app......
-
Botkin v. State
...kind of case before us, the following seem to be definitely in point: Stone v. State, 22 Tex.App. 185, 2 S.W. 585; O'Brien v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 39, 201 S.W. 179; and Rogers v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 139, 114 S.W.2d The Rogers case deals with a very similar situation to that before us and is......
-
Clark v. State
...declared in article 801, C. C. P., applied to the testimony of this witness. The law entitled the appellant to this instruction. O'Brien v. State, 201 S. W. 179, and cases therein referred to. The evidence characterizes her as something more than a mere inmate of the house. She aided in kee......