Tucker v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 512
• 5 S.W. 180
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119

Syllabus

<p>1. Receiving Stolen Property, etc. — Evidence — Charge oe the Court. — The charge in the indictment being that the appellant re> ceived the property from one Noon Tucker, knowing that the same was stolen by the said Noon Tucker, the theft of the property by the said Noon Tucker became an essential issue in the case, and, as tending to establish that issue, the court properly permitted a State’s witness to testify that when he saw the said Noon Tucker in possession of the said property, he questioned the said Noon as to his title, and the said ' Noon replied that he had raised it. The failure of the trial court, in its charge to the jury, to limit and restrict such evidence became immaterial in view of the defendant’s failure to except to such omission, and in view of the fact that the omission could not prejudice his rights.</p> <p>2. Practice.—Before reading his charge in this case to the jury, the trial judge, in the presence of the jury, announced to the counsel for the defense, that he would enforce the rules laid down by the Court of Appeals with reference to exceptions on trial to the charge. Held, that such action was not error. Held, further, that, while the action of the court in requiring the defendant’s counsel to point out specifically his objections to the charge, at the time it was given, was error, it became immaterial in view of the fact that the counsel subsequently obtained complete bills embodying his said exceptions.</p> <p>3. Same—Continuance.—A third application for continuance was properly refused the defendant in this case, in view of the fact that he adduced upon the trial, from other sources, the substance of the alleged absent testimony,</p> <p>4 Receiving Stolen Property, etc.—Pact Case.—See the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for receiving stolen property knowing'it to be stolen.</p>