Keith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Keith v. State

26 S.W. 412, 33 Tex. Crim. 341, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 9, 1894

DocketNo. 445.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 S.W. 412 (Keith 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

Keith v. State, 26 S.W. 412, 33 Tex. Crim. 341, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109 (Tex. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and awarded two years in the State reformatory.

Several matters are urged as causes for reversal. The appellant being under 13 years of age, it was incumbent on the State to prove, “that he had discretion sufficient to understand the nature and illegality of the act constituting the offense.” Penal Code, art. 34. It is not sufficient thaPthe accused knew the difference between -good and evil, or that he was possessed of the intelligence of ordinary boys of his age. Parker v. The State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 451; Carr v. The State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 562. It must be shown that he had sufficient discretion to understand the nature and illegality of the particular act constituting the crime. Carr v. The State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 562. Appellant’s confession was proved, in which he detailed the manner of entering the house through a window. When he was found sleeping in Swafford’s barn, he ran, and escaped through a window. Swafford found some canned goods and crackers where appellant and the two Puckers had slept, and carried them down on the street. Appellant, as soon as he saw Swafford with the goods, at once claimed them, and was refused possession unless he should tell where he obtained the goods, which he did at once. He also carried Swaf-ford to the storehouse and explained to him how the Puckers entered the house; stating also that he too would have entered, but couldn’t pass between the iron bars fastened across the window. These facts explained the flight of appellant from the barn, on the theory that he was afraid of Swafford; and his voluntarily approaching Swafford and claiming the goods, afterwards, certainly does not show that he under *344 stood tbe nature and illegality of tbe act of entering tbe store and taking tbe goods. His mother testified: “I taugbt bim it was wrong to steal. I belong to tbe church, and have always taugbt tbe defendant to do right. He has gone to school, and attends cburcb. * * *” She further stated that defendant was tbe dullest of her children. We -do not think the evidence supports tbe verdict. It should be shown that tbe accused has sufficient discretion to understand tbe nature and illegality of tbe crime for which be was convicted, or with which be is charged, as required by tbe statute.

Tbe judgment is reversed and cause remanded. ■

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and awarded two years in the State reformatory.

Several matters are urged as causes for reversal. The appellant being under 13 years of age, it was incumbent on the State to prove, “that he had discretion sufficient to understand the nature and illegality of the act constituting the offense.” Penal Code, art. 34. It is not sufficient thaPthe accused knew the difference between -good and evil, or that he was possessed of the intelligence of ordinary boys of his age. Parker v. The State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 451; Carr v. The State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 562. It must be shown that he had sufficient discretion to understand the nature and illegality of the particular act constituting the crime. Carr v. The State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 562. Appellant’s confession was proved, in which he detailed the manner of entering the house through a window. When he was found sleeping in Swafford’s barn, he ran, and escaped through a window. Swafford found some canned goods and crackers where appellant and the two Puckers had slept, and carried them down on the street. Appellant, as soon as he saw Swafford with the goods, at once claimed them, and was refused possession unless he should tell where he obtained the goods, which he did at once. He also carried Swaf-ford to the storehouse and explained to him how the Puckers entered the house; stating also that he too would have entered, but couldn’t pass between the iron bars fastened across the window. These facts explained the flight of appellant from the barn, on the theory that he was afraid of Swafford; and his voluntarily approaching Swafford and claiming the goods, afterwards, certainly does not show that he under *344 stood tbe nature and illegality of tbe act of entering tbe store and taking tbe goods. His mother testified: “I taugbt bim it was wrong to steal. I belong to tbe church, and have always taugbt tbe defendant to do right. He has gone to school, and attends cburcb. * * *” She further stated that defendant was tbe dullest of her children. We -do not think the evidence supports tbe verdict. It should be shown that tbe accused has sufficient discretion to understand tbe nature and illegality of tbe crime for which be was convicted, or with which be is charged, as required by tbe statute.

Tbe judgment is reversed and cause remanded. ■

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.W. 412, 33 Tex. Crim. 341, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-v-state-texcrimapp-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack