McDonald v. State

79 S.W. 542, 46 Tex. Crim. 4, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 23, 1904
DocketNo. 2989.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 79 S.W. 542 (McDonald 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
McDonald v. State, 79 S.W. 542, 46 Tex. Crim. 4, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41 (Tex. 1904).

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death.

Appellant objected to the following portion of the court’s charge: “All persons are principals, who are guilty of acting together in the commission of an offense. When an offense has been actually committed by one or more persons, the true criterion for determining who are principals is, did the parties act together in the commission of t,he offense; was the act done in pursuance of a common intent and in pursuance of a previously formed design in which the minds of all united and concurred? If so, then the law is that all are alike guilty, provided the offense was actually committed during the existence and in the execution of the common design and intent of all, whether in point of fact all were actually bodily present on the ground when the offense was actually committed ‘or not.” This charge is erroneous. In order to constitute one a principal he must be actually bodily present when the offense is committed. Appellant’s defense was, and his testimony tended to show an alabi; and in this charge the court tells the jury defendant would be a principal whether he was actually present or not. For a dis *5 cussion of this matter see the following authorities: MeIver v. State, 37 S. W. Rep., 745; Dawson v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 50; Yates v. State, 42 S. W. Rep., 296; Bell v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 677; Wright v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 45; Bennett v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 241; Faulkner v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 311; McAlester v. State, 76 S. W. Rep., 760.

For the error discussed the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Great National Lloyds v. Hall
265 S.W.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Middleton v. State
217 S.W. 1046 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Serrato v. State
171 S.W. 1133 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Silvas v. State
159 S.W. 223 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Lafell v. State
153 S.W. 884 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
La Fell v. State
153 S.W. 884 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Goodwin v. State
126 S.W. 582 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Jones v. State
122 S.W. 31 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Davis v. State
117 S.W. 159 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Skidmore v. State
80 Neb. 698 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)
Fruger v. State
99 S.W. 1014 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1907)
Bowen v. State
82 S.W. 520 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1904)
Barnett, Alias Dobson v. State
80 S.W. 1013 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.W. 542, 46 Tex. Crim. 4, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.