Gomez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gomez v. State

15 Tex. Ct. App. 64, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 75

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 14, 1883

DocketNo. 1618

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Tex. Ct. App. 64 (Gomez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gomez v. State, 15 Tex. Ct. App. 64, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 75 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

In the charge to the jury which was excepted to by defendant, the learned judge instructed them as follows, viz: “When a person is on trial for theft of a horse, the possession of such stolen horse by the accused without a written transfer or bill of sale containing a specific description of such animal is jprima, facie evidence against the accused that such possession was illegal.”

In Flores & Bernal v. The State, 13 Texas Court of Appeals, 665, a similar charge was given, and it was held to be error. It was said, “It is true that the rule here announced is so declared by statute, but to charge it abstractly is error. * * * We think that the court should have instructed the jury that, though the failure to produce a written conveyance was prima facie evidence that defendant’s possession was illegal, yet it was not conclusive, and might be rebutted by competent evidence. The charge as it was given may have made the impression upon the minds of the jurors that the inquiry should be confined to the question as to whether or not the defendant had a written conveyance ” (citing Mills v. The State, 40 Texas, 69; Garcia v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 335).

For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause ’ remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

White, Presiding Judge.

In the charge to the jury which was excepted to by defendant, the learned judge instructed them as follows, viz: “When a person is on trial for theft of a horse, the possession of such stolen horse by the accused without a written transfer or bill of sale containing a specific description of such animal is jprima, facie evidence against the accused that such possession was illegal.”

In Flores & Bernal v. The State, 13 Texas Court of Appeals, 665, a similar charge was given, and it was held to be error. It was said, “It is true that the rule here announced is so declared by statute, but to charge it abstractly is error. * * * We think that the court should have instructed the jury that, though the failure to produce a written conveyance was prima facie evidence that defendant’s possession was illegal, yet it was not conclusive, and might be rebutted by competent evidence. The charge as it was given may have made the impression upon the minds of the jurors that the inquiry should be confined to the question as to whether or not the defendant had a written conveyance ” (citing Mills v. The State, 40 Texas, 69; Garcia v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 335).

For this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause ’ remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Tex. Ct. App. 64, 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-state-texapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack