Ring v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1874
• Citation: 42 Tex. 282
• Parties: H. C. RING v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

42 Tex. 282

H. C. RING

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1874.

APPEAL from the Criminal District Court of Harris county. Tried below before Hon. Gustave Cook.

Crank & Webb, for appellant.

Frank M. Spencer and N. G. Kittrell, for State.

DIVINE, J.

The appellant, with Horace Bell and Wm. E. Jones, were jointly indicted, in the District Court of Harris county, at the August term, 1874, charged with robbery from the person of James Highlander. Under the Act of March 16, 1874, Bell obtained a severance, and the District Attorney having dismissed as to Jones, the defendant, Ring, was put upon his trial, which resulted in his conviction, his punishment being assessed by the jury at seven years in the penitentiary. The motion of defendant for a new trial being overruled, the defendant appealed, and presents eight assignments of error as grounds for a reversal of the judgment.

We will only notice a portion of the fourth and fifth assignments of error, as they embrace all that is necessary for the decision of the case.

The fourth assignment states: “Because the said verdict of the jury does not find defendant guilty of any offense whatever, and is, in effect, no verdict to support a judgment of the court;” and the fifth assignment of error is: “Because of the errors of the court in its charge to the jury, as set out in said divisions three and four in the motion for a new trial, whereby the jury were misled and misdirected in said charge.”

The defendant was indicted as a principal in the robbery, under Article 743 of the Criminal Code, and, under the charge of the court, was found guilty under Article 218 of the Criminal Code. This article reads: “Any person who advises or agrees to the commission of an offense, and who is present when the same is committed, is a principal thereto, whether he aids or not in the illegal act.”

The verdict was: “We, the jury, find the defendant, H. C. Ring, guilty of agreeing to the commission of the offense, and (he) is liable as a principal offender, and assess the punishment,” etc.

The jury draw the conclusion that the accused is guilty as a principal offender by reason of the fact previously found, of his agreeing to the offense. His agreeing to the commission of the offense is not sufficient to support the judgment, and it is on this fact found that the opinion of his guilt rested in the minds of the jury. Article 218 makes it necessary that there should be an antecedent advice given, or an agreement to...