Thompson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Thompson v. State

38 S.W. 785, 37 Tex. Crim. 227, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 27, 1897

DocketNo. 1064.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 S.W. 785 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 38 S.W. 785, 37 Tex. Crim. 227, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Tex. 1897).

Pincite

Opinions

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of betting at a game played with dice, commonly known as “craps,” not being played at a private residence, and fined $10; hence this appeal. Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that, if they believed from the testimony that the game was a banking game or table, they should acquit. This was refused. In this there was no error. It makes no difference whether the game was a banking game or table, or not; if the defendant bet at it, he violated the law. Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that the defendant was presumed to be innocent, etc., which was refused. In the main charge the court instructed the jury that “the defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and, in case you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of defendant, you will acquit him, and say by your verdict, ‘Not guilty.’” This was all that was required from the court. The evidence amply supports the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of betting at a game played with dice, commonly known as “craps,” not being played at a private residence, and fined $10; hence this appeal. Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that, if they believed from the testimony that the game was a banking game or table, they should acquit. This was refused. In this there was no error. It makes no difference whether the game was a banking game or table, or not; if the defendant bet at it, he violated the law. Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that the defendant was presumed to be innocent, etc., which was refused. In the main charge the court instructed the jury that “the defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and, in case you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of defendant, you will acquit him, and say by your verdict, ‘Not guilty.’” This was all that was required from the court. The evidence amply supports the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.W. 785, 37 Tex. Crim. 227, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-texcrimapp-1897.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack