Sigler v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 427

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft — Charge of the Court. —In a trial for theft of a mare, the defence was that the taking was done under a bona fide belief and claim of right. The proof showed that the animal was branded in a brand formerly used by the defendant’s wife, and was taken openly by the defendant as his wife’s property, and from the range formerly used by her stock thus branded. The court below charged for acquittal if the jury believed that the defendant took the animal under the honest though mistaken belief that it was his wife’s; but the defence, not being satisfied with the general charge in this respect, asked special instructions apprising the jury that a husband has the control, care, and management of his wife’s personal property, and presenting more pertinently and directly the law applicable to the defence and the evidence. The special instructions were refused on the ground that they were substantially given in the general charge. Held, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the special instructions should have been given, and that their refusal may have prejudiced the rights of the defendant.</p> <p>2. Evidence. — In a trial for theft, the State was allowed to prove that as the arresting officer approached the defendant, the latter, who knew the officer, inquired of him what he was down there for; that the officer replied he had come after him, and then the defendant said he expected so as soon as he saw him coming. The defence objected that the defendant was in arrest, and had not been warned that what he should say might be used against him. Held, that the objection was not well taken, and there was no error in the ruling.</p>