Ainsworth v. State

Citations

• 11 Tex. Ct. App. 339

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Criminal Intent.— That the accused knew that the property taken was not his own, and that it was taken to deprive the true owner of it, is an essential element of the crime of theft; and one usually evidenced by a taking in such maimer and under such circumstances as to avoid detection or responsibility. See evidence held insufficient to disclose a criminal intent.</p> <p>2. Charge of the Court instructed the jury that “the open and public manner in which property is taken and claimed will not, in any manner, lessen or excuse the offense, if the same was taken with guilty knowledge and fraudulent intent.” Held, correct as an abstract proposition, but, in view of the evidence, negative in nature and effect, and calculated to mislead the jury.</p> <p>3. Same.—Whatever may be the defense interposed, it is the duty of the court to apply clearly, pertinently and affirmatively the law applicable to the facts tending to support it.</p> <p>4. Same.— In the absence of a fraudulent intent in the taking of the property of another, such taking constitutes a mere trespass upon property, and when the jury may infer from the evidence that the taking was not fraudulent, the accused is entitled to an instruction to the jury as to the distinction between trespass and theft.</p>