Case Name: SHARP v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 247 S.W. 1096
Docket Number: No. 7356
Parties: SHARP v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 247
Pages: 1096–1097

Head Matter:
SHARP v. STATE.
(No. 7356.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <§= 1056(1) — When appellate court will consider refusal to give special charges.
In misdemeanor cases the appellate court will not consider the refusal of special charges asked unless the general charge given was ex-cepteá to.
2. Criminal law <§=l 159(3) — Jury’s verdict based on conflicting evidence not disturbed where issue affirmatively presented to them.
A verdict of guilty in a prosecution for entering and remaining in a house where gaming was being conducted, attacked on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show that the place at which the alleged gambling was being conducted was not a private residence, will not be disturbed on appeal where the verdict is based on conflicting testimony, and the jury were affirmatively charged on the issue as to whether or not the place was a private residence.
On Motion for Rehearing.1
3. Gaming <§=>89(0 — 'When indictment must allege place of gaming is commonly used for gambling.
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 563, prohibiting any person from going into and remaining in any place where any of the games prohibited by law are within his knowledge being played, it is not necessary for the proof to show that the house in question was" a public gambling house; it is only when the character of gaming alleged ⅛ with cards, and the place a private residence occupied by a family, that there must be the further allegation that it is one commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming.
4. Gaming <§=572(6) — 'When private residence becomes gaming house. '
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 563, a private residence occupied by a family can become a gaming house when it is commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming, and it thus loses its protective character as such private residence.
5. Gaming <§=>77— One entering and remaining in gaming room not occupied by family commits offense.
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 563, if one, having entered a room which is not a private residence occupied by a family, there finds a game of cards in progress at which money is being bet and wagered, and he remains in said room, he is guilty of an offense, and punishable under the above article.
6. Gaming 102 — Charge of court as to issue of character of place where gaming transacted held proper.
In a prosecution for entering and remaining in a house where gaming was being conducted, held, the charge of the court amply protected accused’s rights when it informed the jury that, if they believed the place to be a private residence occupied by a family, they should acquit him, or, if they had a reasonable doubt of such fact, they should find him not guilty.
Appeal from Wichita County Court at Law; Guy Rogers, Judge.
Will Sharp was convicted of a misdemean- or and appeals.
Affirmed.
Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, and Fred K. Spurlock, of Eleetra, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORB, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court at law of Wichita county of the offense of entering and remaining in a house where gaming was being conducted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.
There was no exception taken to the charge of the trial court. Appellant presented a number of special charges suggesting the presentation of defensive theories in a manner different from their presentation in the main charge, which were refused, which action is made the subject of bills of exception. This court held in Black v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 218, 234 S. W. 397, that, in a misdemeanor case, in order to secure review of the action of the lower court in refusing special corrective charges, the record must reflect the fact that there were exceptions taken to the charge of the court as given. See Boattenhamer v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 211, 206 S. W. 344. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the ruling set forth in the opinion in said case.
The sufficiency of the testimony to show that the place at which the alleged gambling was being conducted was not a private residence is raised in the motion for new trial. There was testimony both ways upon the trial, and this issue was affirmatively presented in the charge of the court, and settled against appellant by the verdict of the jury.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
iSs>For other eases see same topic and KET-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes