Stokes v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 16763.,16763. |
| Citation | 71 S.W.2d 882 |
| Parties | STOKES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; Charles D. Berry, Judge.
Claude Stokes was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
H. L. Carpenter, of Greenville, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The proof on the part of the state was to the effect that, on the 26th of October, 1932, some one burglarized the freight depot at Celeste and took therefrom some shoes and pocketknives. Some time after the burglary appellant offered to sell some pocketknives and shoes to a number of persons. The state made an effort to identify the articles appellant had in his possession by showing that they were of the same kind as the property stolen from the freight house.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced several witnesses who testified that the knives and shoes had been won by appellant in a game of chance at Crawley's filling station in Leonard, Tex. In short, if the testimony of these witnesses had been believed the jury would have acquitted appellant. Appellant timely and properly excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to embrace an instruction covering this affirmative defense. In addition to excepting to the charge, appellant submitted a requested instruction on the subject. The court declined to amend the charge, and refused to submit the requested instruction. Nowhere in the charge was appellant's defense affirmatively submitted to the jury. The rule is well settled that, where the accused on trial presents affirmative evidence going to show the existence of facts which would constitute a defense against the charge, it is his right to have such matter affirmatively submitted in the charge of the court. Pinkerton v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 449, 244 S. W. 606, and authorities cited. Reversible error is presented.
It is shown in two bills of exception that the state proved by the officer having appellant in custody that during the time appellant was under arrest he did not tell him (the officer) that he got the knives and shoes from a man in the town of Leonard, and further that appellant kept silent concerning the matter. These bills present reversible error. The state could not avail itself of appellant's silence during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...alleged defensive theory merely negates an element of the offense no affirmative charge need be given overruling Stokes v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 71 S.W.2d 882 (1934), and Cozby v. State, 506 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). In Sanders it was held that the defendant's testimony claiming def......
-
Sanders v. State
...144 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Warren v. State, 565 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The appellant cites us to the 1934 case of Stokes v. State, 71 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Cr.App.1934) and Cozby v. State, 506 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). In Stokes, supra, the defendant was charged with burglary. His defense ......
-
Sanders v. State, 2-84-215-CR
...do not constitute evidence of a "good faith purchase." Sanders relies on the case of Cozby v. State, supra, and Stokes v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 71 S.W.2d 882 (1934). In Cozby, the defendant was accused of receiving and concealing stolen property, an automobile. He testified at trial tha......
-
Redding v. State, 23477.
...silence as a circumstance against him. This the state may not do. Taylor v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 42 S.W.2d 426; Stokes v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 71 S.W.2d 882. In the Weatherred case, supra, Judge Lattimore clearly distinguishes between such testimony when presented in rebuttal of e......