Case ID: sw_141/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TREADWELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 29, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 824) — Instructions—Requests— Necessity.
    In the absence of any request, and in the absence of any exception to the charge as given, a conviction will not be reversed because of the failure to charge on accused’s theory.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1996-2004; Dec. Dig. § 824.]
    Appeal from Throckmorton County Court; T. J. Wright, Judge.
    Eal Treadwell was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted by the grand jury, charged with unlawfully breaking and pulling down the fence of another without the consent of the owner. He was adjudged guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $10.

There* are but two grounds in appellant’s motion for a new trial; the first being that the court erred in refusing to give special charge No. 1, requested by defendant. There is no such charge in the record. The record containing no special charge, consequently we cannot consider this ground.

The second is based on the insufficiency of the evidence. The testimony for the state shows that defendant tore down the fence of John Odell. Defendant, in his testimony, admits that he did so, but says it was necessary to get his wagons through the gates, and while he left the fence down that night, as he had no tools with which to repair it, he intended to return the next morning and rebuild the torn-down place, and he would have done so if he had not met Mr. Odell, who informed him that he had rebuilt the fence. Mr. Odell denies appellant telling him this until he informed him he was going to prosecute him. Had the defendant requested a charge presenting this issue, it should have been given; but in the absence of any requested charge, and in the absence of any exception to the charge as given, this being a misdemeanor, under the decisions of this court we would not be authorized to reverse the case because of this omission in the charge.

If in fact it was a case of necessity, and defendant really intended to return and rebuild the fence as soon as he could go and get tools to do so, the conviction would seem to be a hardship; but this issue of fact is one for the jury to pass on under appropriate instructions, and in misdemeanor cases it is incumbent on the defendant to ask special charges presenting his theory, and except to the failure of the court to properly submit the issue.

This not being done, the judgment must be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.