Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1889 |
| Citation | 12 S.W. 701 |
| Parties | JACKSON <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Parker county; J. W. PATTERSON, Judge.
G. A. McCall and J. M. Richards, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
We are not called upon to determine the admissibility of the testimony objected to by defendant, as the bills of exception fail to show that said testimony was admitted; said bills merely stating that it was offered by the state, objected to by defendant, and that defendant's objections thereto were overruled. It should have been distinctly stated in the bills that the testimony was admitted, and went before the jury. Burke's Case, 25 Tex. App. 172, 7 S. W. Rep. 873; Willson, Crim. St. § 2368.
It was proved that one of the sacks stolen at the time of the burglary was recently thereafter found in defendant's house. This evidence having been admitted, it was the duty of the court to instruct the jury, as a part of the law of the case, that, to warrant an inference of guilt from the circumstance of possession of recently stolen property, such possession must be personal and exclusive, must be unexplained, and must involve a distinct and conscious assertion of property by defendant. Field's Case, 24 Tex. App. 422, 6 S. W. Rep. 200. No such instruction was given.
Again, it was proved that some of the stolen sacks were found in the house of one Kilby, recently after the burglary. With respect to this testimony, the court should have instructed the jury that it could not be considered against defendant, unless it was further proved that said Kilby and defendant acted together in the commission of the burglary, (Pierson v. State, 18 Tex. App. 524;) and not then, unless it was shown that Kilby had personal and exclusive possession of said sacks, unexplained, etc. In the particulars mentioned we think the charge of the court is fundamentally erroneous, and we must therefore reverse the judgment.
In another particular the charge is erroneous, but it is not such error as is reversible, in the absence of an exception, and we find no exception in the record. In the ninth paragraph the rule relating to explanation of possession of stolen property is given. There was no evidence that defendant made any explanation whatever, and no evidence calling for or warranting the said paragraph of the charge. We call attention to this error, in view of another trial of the cause. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...Cr. R. 604 ; Browder v. State, 30 Tex. App. 614 ; Schoenfeldt v. State, 30 Tex. App. 695 ; Jacobs v. State, 28 Tex. App. 79 ; Jackson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 143 ; Huffman v. State, 28 Tex. App. 174 ; Walker v. State, 28 Tex. App. 503 ; Graham v. State, 28 Tex. App. 582 ; Hughes v. State, 27......
-
Grantello v. United States
...on Evidence, § 32; Sorenson v. United States, 168 F. 785, 798, 94 C. C. A. 181; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, § 469; Jackson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 143, 12 S. W. 701; State v. Belcher, 136 Mo. 137, 37 S. W. 800; State v. Warford, 106 Mo. 55, 63, 64, 16 S. W. 886, 27 Am. St. Rep. 322; Stat......
-
Lester v. State
...state that the evidence offered was in fact introduced in evidence. See Burke v. State, 25 Tex. App. 172, 7 S. W. 873; Jackson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 143, 12 S. W. 701; Wilson v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 22, 22 S. W. 39; Simms v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 278, 22 S. W. 876; Thompson v. State, 33 T......
-
Rogers v. State
...was admitted in evidence. Burke v. State, 25 Tex. App. 172, 7 S. W. 873; Jacobs v. State, 28 Tex. App. 79, 12 S. W. 408; Jackson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 143, 12 S. W. 701; Simms v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 277, 22 S. W. 876; Gonzales v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 25 S. W. Appellant offered to p......