Case Name: Andy Thompson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1897-01-27
Citations: 37 Tex. Crim. 227
Docket Number: No. 1064
Parties: Andy Thompson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 227–229

Head Matter:
Andy Thompson v. The State.
No. 1064.
Decided January 27th, 1897.
Motion for Rehearing Decided February 24th, 1897.
1. Betting at a Game Played With Dice—“Craps.” 0
On a trial for betting at a game played with dice, commonly called “craps,” it makes no difference whether the game was a banking game or table or not. If defendant bet at it, he violated the law.
2. Special Instructions as to Presumption of Innocence—Charge.
Where the charge of the court instructed the jury in the language of the statute as to the presumption of innocence, it is not error to refuse a special requested instruction upon the same subject.
ON MOTION EOB BEHEABING.
3. “Craps”—Betting at Game Played With Dice—Indictment.
On a trial for betting at a game played with dice, commonly called “craps,” and the evidence showing that the game played with dice, at which defendant bet, was a banking game or table, and it was contended that to warrant a conviction, the indictment should have alleged, that the betting was at a gaming table or bank. Held: The contention is not maintainable, the statute makes the offense to consist in betting at a game played with dice not at a private residence; and if defendant played at such game he will not be heard to complain, that the State did not indict him for betting at a banking game or table. Whether the game of “eraps” was a banking game or not, if defendant bet at it, he was liable under the indictment.
Appeal from the County Court of Limestone. Tried below before Hon. E. C. Chambers, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for betting at a game played with dice, commonly called “craps,” not at a private residence; penalty, a fine of $10.
No statement necessary.
Osborne & Kennedy, for appellant,
on motion for rehearing:
Penal Code, Arts. 358-364; Averheart v. State, 30 Tex. Crim. App., 651; Bell v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 187; Shaw v. State, 33 S. W. Rep., 1078.
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for betting at a game played with dice, called craps, and contends that because it is shown that said game was a banking game, being dealt and bet on as such, he was entitled to an acquittal. While the act of betting at craps is not an offense eo nomine, it comes within the purview of Art. 388, Penal Code. Said article, after denouncing betting at certain enumerated games, then denounces betting “at any game of any character that can be played with dice or dominoes.” • Therefore it matters not whether the game was being dealt as a banking game, or whether there were two or more parties shaking dice alternately. Betting at the game played with dice is the gravamen of the offense charged, and when this is proved, it matters not under what circumstances, unless at a private residence, the offense is complete.

Opinion:
HURT, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of betting at a game played with dice, commonly known as "craps," not being played at a private residence, and fined $10; hence this appeal. Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that, if they believed from the testimony that the game was a banking game or table, they should acquit. This was refused. In this there was no error. It makes no difference whether the game was a banking game or table, or not; if the defendant bet at it, he violated the law. Appellant requested the court to charge the jury that the defendant was presumed to be innocent, etc., which was refused. In the main charge the court instructed the jury that "the defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and, in case you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of defendant, you will acquit him, and say by your verdict, 'Not guilty.'" This was all that was required from the court. The evidence amply supports the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.