Gamel v. State

• Decision Date: 22 May 1886
• Citation: 17 S.W. 158
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: GAMEL v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

17 S.W. 158

GAMEL v. STATE.¹

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1886.

Appeal from Shackelford county court; R. M. NORMAN, Judge.

Indictment of Kate Gamel for keeping a disorderly house. Verdict of guilty. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The court charged as follows: "(1) You are charged that a disorderly house is one kept for the purpose of public prostitution, or as a common resort for prostitutes and vagabonds. (2) You are charged that a disorderly house can be proven by circumstantial evidence; and if, by the evidence, you find that the defendant was or is proprietor of said house, and it was used for purposes stated in indictment, you will find her guilty. (3) You are charged that defendant is presumed innocent until otherwise proven. If by the law and evidence you find the defendant guilty, the punishment is fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars; otherwise you will acquit." The court refused the following requested instructions: "(1) The jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and the defendant is presumed to be innocent until her guilt is established by legal and competent evidence, to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and that, after considering all of the evidence in the case, if the jury shall have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, they will acquit. (2) That before defendant could be convicted upon circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances relied on by the state to sustain the conviction must be such as would lead the mind to no other conclusion but defendant's guilt, and exclude every other hypothesis except defendant's guilt. (3) That the burden of proof rests on the state to show defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and before the jury can convict the evidence must show that the defendant kept the house, as alleged, prior to November 11, 1885, and not more than two years anterior thereto."

J. M. Moore and L. W. Campbell, for appellant. J. H. Burts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for keeping a disorderly house. The charge of the court was excepted to, and additional special instructions which were requested for defendant were refused. The charge was insufficient as a whole, and erroneous in some particulars, and all of the defendant's special instructions should have been given.

As shown by the defendant's second bill of...