Polanke v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1894 |
| Citation | 28 S.W. 541 |
| Parties | POLANKE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Atascosa county; M. F. Lowe, Judge.
Faustino Polanke was convicted of hog theft, and appeals. Reversed.
Read & Martin, for appellant. R. L. Henry, for the State.
This conviction was for hog-theft. The statement of facts incorporated in the record constitutes this a conviction depending wholly upon circumstantial evidence. It was therefore incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury in regard to the law applicable to such testimony. This is the settled rule in this state, by an unbroken line of decisions; and a failure to comply with it requires a reversal of the judgment, though exception be not reserved. See Willson, Cr. Proc. § 2342, for collated authorities.
A charge upon alibi was requested by appellant, but refused by the court, and an exception was reserved. As there was some evidence bearing on this theory, though weak and inferential, it would be better that such charge be given upon another trial. The charge, as asked by appellant, submitted the question of alibi upon the theory only of the nonpresence of appellant at the time and place of the taking. Applicable to the facts, this was hardly correct, because appellant may have been guilty, and yet not bodily present at the actual taking. He may have been guilty as "principal," as that term is defined and understood in this state.
The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...circumstantial evidence and the court should instruct the jury thereon. People v. Scott, 37 P. 335; Hanks v. State, 56 S.W. 922; Polanke v. State, 28 S.W. 541; Williard State, 9 S.W. 358; Hart v. State, 23 S.E. 831; Crowell v. State, 6 S.W. 318; Jones v. State, 31 S.E. 574; Lopez v. State, ......
- Gardner v. State
- Riley v. State