Ross v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1861 |
| Citation | 29 Tex. 499 |
| Parties | FRANK ROSS v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Although the charge of the court may not be free from objection, yet if, as a whole, it leaves all the facts to the determination of the jury, the judgment will not be reversed.
The charge to the jury is perfectly unexceptionable only when the judge confines himself to the duty of setting forth the law applicable to the case, without expressing or intimating any opinion as to the weight of evidence, or the credibility of statements made by the party accused or by the witness. Pas. Dig. art. 3859, note 744.
Nothing has been furnished to the reporter but the brief for the state and the opinion, neither of which shows from what county the case was brought. In the absence of the record the reporter gives the brief of Mr. Jack, who represented the attorney general.
Thos. M. Jack, for the state. The first motion for a new trial presents simply a question of the sufficiency of the evidence. By reference to the statement of facts, the court will be satisfied that the testimony is ample and conclusive.
The second motion objects to the qualification of one of the jurors. After the jury have been sworn, the case tried, and a verdict rendered, the objection comes too late.
Besides, the motion is neither supported by the affidavit of the accused, nor any one else. He will not be allowed to dispute this record in the court. There is no evidence that the motion was founded in fact, and the court below properly overruled it. McGehee v. Shafer, 9 Tex. 23; Bretge v. Lander, 22 Tex.
The motion in arrest of judgment is based on the fact, that the indictment contains no allegation of the value of the property charged to have been stolen.
The indictment charges the stealing of a gelding, and is founded on article 765 of the penal code, which prescribes, “If any person shall steal any horse, gelding, etc., he shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary not less than five, nor more than fifteen years.” The value of the animal is wholly immaterial, not entering at all into the nature of the offense or the extent of the punishment. In such a case, the distinction of grand and petty larceny does not hold. Lopez v. The State, 20 Tex. 780, which decides the very principle here involved.
We are of opinion, that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. The charge of the court to the jury is perhaps, in one respect, somewhat objectionable. The jury were told, that if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barry
...70 Mo.App. 493; People v. Casey, 65 Cal. 260, 3 P. 874; People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 142, op. 147; State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267; Ross v. State, 29 Tex. 499 at 500; Com. v. Barry, 91 Mass. 276; v. State, 85 Ind. 90; People v. Webster (Cal.) 43 P. 1114. See section 46, Blashf. Instruct. Juries,......
-
State v. Addt
...order,) leavingthem to judge of the truth thereof, and draw their deductions therefrom, " etc. See State v. Rogers, 93 N. C. 523; Ross v. State, 29 Tex. 499; Com. v. Barry, 9 Allen, 276; People v. Williams, 17 Cal. 142. The judgment of this court is that the judgment of the circuit court be......
-
Wood v. State
...to the case, and omitting and refusing to instruct as to the law not applicable to it. This is the proper and safe course. Ross v. State, 29 Tex. 499. Where the exclusion by express direction of the judge is of a lesser offense covered by the indictment, or lower degree of the offense than ......
-
Clark v. State
...of estray animals” is in direct violation of arts. 3059 and 3060, Pas. Dig. Brown v. The State, 23 Tex. 201;Ross v. The State, Galveston term, 21 March, 1861 (29 Tex. 499);Nels v. The State, 2 Tex. 282. III. The charge requires the jury to find the defendant guilty if he appropriated the an......