Case Name: ROBERTS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-10-15
Citations: 265 S.W. 385
Docket Number: No. 8205
Parties: ROBERTS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
ROBERTS v. STATE.
(No. 8205.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 15, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;804(l) — Law does not sanction verbal charge save by consent.
The law does not sanction a verbal charge except by consent.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 172(1) — Giving of verbal charge without consent of accused held to require reversal.
In prosecution for vagrancy, giving a verbal charge, though accused insisted on written one, held, to require reversal in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 739, 740.
Appeal from Corporation Court of Port Arthur; A. W. Dyeus, Judge.
Mamie Roberts was convicted of vagrancy and fined, and she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Howth & O’Fiel, of Beaumont, Rose & Johnson, of Port Arthur, and Lamar Hart, of Beaumont, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is vagrancy; punishment fixed at a fine of $200.
The record* shows, without controversy, that the trial court gave to the jury a verbal instruction touching the law of the case. It appears by special charges and by express exceptions to the court in giving the verbal charge that appellant insisted upon a written charge. In article 740, C. C. P., it is said:
"No verbal charge shall be given in any case whatever, except in cases of misdemeanor, and then only by consent of the parties."
In the present case there was no consent. The law does not sanction a verbal charge save by consent. See article 739, O. G. P. It has been uniformly held that these statutes must be followed. The failure to do so, when properly presented for review, must result in a reversal. Melton v. State, 12 Tex. App. 488; Riley v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 243 S. W. 467; Wright v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 235 S. W. 886. Many other cases illustrate this view.
There are other questions in the ease which are not deemed necessary to decide in view of another trial.
For the reason pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.