Unsell v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1898 |
| Parties | UNSELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Archer county; George E. Miller, Judge.
John Unsell was convicted of theft of a cow, and appeals. Affirmed.
Stine, Chesnutt & Hurt, for appellant. W. W. Walling and Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of a cow alleged to be the property of W. W. Mann, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years; hence this appeal. Appellant and Grigsby were jointly tried, and both convicted.
There are two bills of exception in the record. The first was reserved to the action of the court in charging the jury that they could not consider, as a circumstance against the defendant Unsell, his failure to testify in his own behalf, and, in considering of their verdict, they must not discuss the defendant's failure to testify. There was no error in this. See Guinn v. State (decided at the present term) 45 S. W. 694.
Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that if they believed from the evidence he aided defendant Grigsby, in killing the animal, only as a hired hand, or as a voluntary laborer, and with no intent to steal, or help steal, it, or if they had a reasonable doubt on this question, they should acquit, and, in the same connection, further requested the court to charge the jury that, although they might believe defendant aided Grigsby in killing the animal, yet unless Unsell did so with fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the value of the cow, and appropriate it to his or Grigsby's use, they should acquit. The evidence disclosed that, if Grigsby committed the theft as charged, appellant assisted him with full knowledge that the animal being stolen was not Grigsby's, but was the property of Mann. They were neighbors. Defendant knew the brand on the cow, and had known for years that it was one of the brands controlled by the alleged owner, and knew that neither Grigsby nor himself had any authority or right to kill the animal, or to in any manner control it. There is no evidence that the defendant was a hired hand, and if, as Grigsby testifies, appellant assisted him in killing the animal, he thereby assisted also in appropriating the property, with full knowledge on his part that Grigsby was stealing it. Under this state of facts, the requested instructions were not applicable. No such issue as presented by the requested instructions was raised by the testimony. The evidence leaves it clear and unquestioned that, if the defendant and Grigsby killed the animal in question, it was done with full knowledge on the part of Unsell that Grigsby did so intend to appropriate it, and that he had no authority to do so. There is no possible ground for mistake on the part of Unsell with regard to the intent of Grigsby in taking the animal.
It is also contended the evidence of the accomplice is not sufficiently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearl v. State
...him. We have held that it is not error for the court to so charge. Fulcher v. State, 28 Tex. App. 465, 13 S. W. 750; Unsell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 45 S. W. 902; Guinn v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 257, 45 S. W. The last bill of exceptions complains that the court erred in failing to charge on ......
-
Kinkead v. State
...to testify in his own behalf. The charge given in this case is in almost the exact terms of a charge approved by this court in Unsell v. State, 45 S. W. 902. We have carefully considered every ground of appellant's motion for a new trial, and, in regard to the one alleging that the testimon......