Clark v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 260
• 5 S.W. 115
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 61

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading.—Complaint alleging that the affiant “has good reason to believe and does believe ” that the allegations made in the complaint are true is not invalid by reason of that form of averring the charge preferred. '</p> <p>2. Same—Defacing Public Buildings.—Complaint and information, otherwise good, which describes the building defaced as a “public building” that was “ held for public use by Cooke county” is sufficient to charge the offense of defacing a public building.</p> <p>8. Same—Charge of the Court.—The failure of the trial court to define the word “willful” in the charge given to the jury was error, but not reversible error, inasmuch as, the offense being a misdemeanor, it devolved upon the defendant to request a special charge to supply the omission, or to reserve exception to the omission.</p> <p>4. Same.—Special charges are properly refused if they announce incorrect principles of law, or if, being correct, they are substantially embraced in the general charge.</p> <p>5. Practice—Disqualification of Judges.—The fact that the title to a school house was vested in the county judge in his official capacity, for the use of the county, could not disqualify him to preside over a trial for defacing the said school house, and hence the motion to transfer this cause to the district court was properly overruled.</p> <p>6. Same—Evidence.—The State, in this case, before the defendant could interpose an objection, proved the former trial and conviction of the defendant for this same'offense, and the trial court refused to entertain a subsequent objection to the proof, and permitted it to go to the jury. Held, error. The statute specially provides that a former conviction shall not operate as a presumption of guilt, and inhibits allusion to it in argument. The evidence being illegitimate, and having been adduced before the defendant could interpose an objection, the court, upon the defendant’s motion, should have withdrawn it from the jury, charging them that