Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.W. 486 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THOMPSON <I>v.</I> STATE. |
Appeal from district court, Lamar county; E. D. McLELLAN, Judge.
Indictment against T. C. Thompson for illegal voting. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon. Defendant appeals.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State. Hill & Hutchison and W. A. Roach, for appellant.
This conviction is for illegal voting. The facts show that the defendant voted at a legal election held in the city of Paris, Tex., for the purpose of electing a mayor and board of aldermen for said city; that prior to voting at said election he had been convicted in the district court of Lamar county of a felony, to-wit, of an assault with intent to murder, which conviction had not been set aside, but had been enforced against him, by confining him in the penitentiary. Upon the trial the court gave an instruction as follows: "If the defendant had been convicted of an assault with the intent to murder, as alleged in the indictment in this cause, and if he knew at the time he so voted that he had been so convicted, such knowledge of his conviction would be equivalent in law to knowing himself not to be a qualified voter." It is contended by counsel for defendant that said instruction is erroneous in principle, and that it is also upon the weight of evidence. We believe the instruction to be correct and unobjectionable. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law, (Pen. Code, art. 14;) and no mistake of law excuses one committing an offense, (Id. art 45.) Every one is conclusively presumed to know the law, both as to civil and criminal transactions. The law is administered upon the principle that every one must be taken conclusively to know it, without proof that he does know it. 9 Crim. Law Mag. 166; Whart. Crim. Ev. § 723. As the defendant knew the fact that he had been convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, it must be conclusively presumed that he knew the legal consequences of such conviction; that he knew that the law declared that offense to be a felony; and that the constitution and the law made one of the consequences of the conviction his disqualification to vote. He cannot be heard to deny such knowledge and it was not necessary that it should be proved that he had such knowledge, because the presumption of law supplied and dispensed with such proof. We do not regard the opinion in Com. v. Bradford, 9 Metc. 268, cited by counsel for defendant, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. State
...defendant ineligible to vote under the law or that to vote while having that ineligibility is a crime. See, e.g., Thompson v. State , 9 S.W. 486, 486–87 (Tex. Ct. App. 1888) ;11 Jenkins v. State , 468 S.W.3d 656, 672–73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015), pet. dism'd, improvidently grant......
-
State v. Savre
...born, had not obtained his second naturalization papers, though these were required to qualify him to vote. See, also, Thompson v. State, 26 Tex. Ct. App. 94 (9 S.W. 486); Gardner v. People, 62 N.Y. 299; State Shea, 106 Iowa 735, 72 N.W. 300. It is manifest that in all of these cases the mi......
-
People v. DeStefano
...of actions of defendant were positive, the Lambert case does not apply here. We agree. Pronouncements made in Thompson v. State, 26 Tex.App. 94, 9 S.W. 486 (Texas) (1888), are pertinent 'Upon the trial the court gave an instruction as follows: 'If the defendant had been convicted of an assa......
-
Johnson v. State
...v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 25 S. W. 124; Medrano v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 216, 22 S. W. 684, 40 Am. St. Rep. 775; Thompson v. State, 26 Tex. App. 97, 9 S. W. 486; Chaplin v. State, 7 Tex. App. 88. As the constable had no authority in law to deputize appellant, if he did attempt to do so,......