Casey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Casey v. State

180 S.W. 233, 78 Tex. Crim. 108, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 17, 1915

DocketNo. 3717.

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W. 233 (Casey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey v. State, 180 S.W. 233, 78 Tex. Crim. 108, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204 (Tex. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PEENDBEGAST, PresidiNG Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary and assessed the lowest punishment.

It is unnecessary to state the evidence further than to state that it was amply sufficient to show that appellant, together with two others, committed the burglary alleged in the indictment. He has no bill of exceptions. The court gave a correct charge on circumstantial evidence. He also correctly told the jury in a separate paragraph that all ¡persons are principals who are guilty of acting together in the commission of an Offense and may be prosecuted and convicted as such. Appellant requested three special charges on circumstantial evidence. They are literally in effect a copy of the court’s charge on that subject, except to the end of each in substance he added “that the defendant and no one else committed the offense charged.” The court correctly declined to give this, but the charge he did give, including that on principals, properly presented the issue. The effect of appellant’s requested charge, if it had been given, would have required the jury to acquit him even though he was guilty of the offense because he was acting with others. The testimony did not raise the issue that he alone was guilty of the offense, but that he, together with two others, were guilty of the offense.

No question is raised in the motion for a new trial which can be considered in the absence of -a bill of exceptions.

The judgment is affirmed

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEENDBEGAST, PresidiNG Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary and assessed the lowest punishment.

It is unnecessary to state the evidence further than to state that it was amply sufficient to show that appellant, together with two others, committed the burglary alleged in the indictment. He has no bill of exceptions. The court gave a correct charge on circumstantial evidence. He also correctly told the jury in a separate paragraph that all ¡persons are principals who are guilty of acting together in the commission of an Offense and may be prosecuted and convicted as such. Appellant requested three special charges on circumstantial evidence. They are literally in effect a copy of the court’s charge on that subject, except to the end of each in substance he added “that the defendant and no one else committed the offense charged.” The court correctly declined to give this, but the charge he did give, including that on principals, properly presented the issue. The effect of appellant’s requested charge, if it had been given, would have required the jury to acquit him even though he was guilty of the offense because he was acting with others. The testimony did not raise the issue that he alone was guilty of the offense, but that he, together with two others, were guilty of the offense.

No question is raised in the motion for a new trial which can be considered in the absence of -a bill of exceptions.

The judgment is affirmed

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W. 233, 78 Tex. Crim. 108, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-state-texcrimapp-1915.