Tucker v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tucker v. State

2 S.W. 893, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 699, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 26, 1886

DocketNo. 5056

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 S.W. 893 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 2 S.W. 893, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 699, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213 (Tex. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

When the proposed testimony of the absent witness, Hodge, for whom a continuance is sought, is considered in connection with the testimony adduced at the trial, we are of opinion the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Upon the theory of the prosecution, the chief inculpatory facts are derived from the testimony of the State’s witness Moody. [710]*710With regard specially to his- testimony, defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: “If you find that M. A. Tucker drove up the yearling .in question, and that defendant, after it was brought to his lot, opened the gate, and had nothing to do with the original taking and driving, you will acquit; and this is so no matter what connection defendant had with it thereafter.” This sixth requested instruction was directly pertinent and applicable to the facts proven, and presented the law ■ in a concise and pointed manner to the vital issue in the case, and though, in a general way, the principle involved may be said to be covered by the general charge, still, it was nowhere presented as concisely and sharply, and we are of the opinion it was error to refuse to give said instruction in charge.

Opinion delivered June 26, 1886.

Many other errors are complained of, few, if any, of which, áre likely to arise upon another trial, and therefore will not be discussed. For the two above pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

White, Presiding Judge.

When the proposed testimony of the absent witness, Hodge, for whom a continuance is sought, is considered in connection with the testimony adduced at the trial, we are of opinion the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Upon the theory of the prosecution, the chief inculpatory facts are derived from the testimony of the State’s witness Moody. [710]*710With regard specially to his- testimony, defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: “If you find that M. A. Tucker drove up the yearling .in question, and that defendant, after it was brought to his lot, opened the gate, and had nothing to do with the original taking and driving, you will acquit; and this is so no matter what connection defendant had with it thereafter.” This sixth requested instruction was directly pertinent and applicable to the facts proven, and presented the law ■ in a concise and pointed manner to the vital issue in the case, and though, in a general way, the principle involved may be said to be covered by the general charge, still, it was nowhere presented as concisely and sharply, and we are of the opinion it was error to refuse to give said instruction in charge.

Opinion delivered June 26, 1886.

Many other errors are complained of, few, if any, of which, áre likely to arise upon another trial, and therefore will not be discussed. For the two above pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.W. 893, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 699, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-texapp-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack