Case Name: GROSS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1953-12-16
Citations: 263 S.W.2d 951
Docket Number: No. 26684
Parties: GROSS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 263
Pages: 951–952

Head Matter:
GROSS v. STATE.
No. 26684.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 16, 1953.
■ MaysMays, Dave Miller,'by Chas. Mays, Fort Worth, for. appellant.
Howard M. Fender,. Crim. Dist. Atty., Gerald Murad, Conard Florence, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is unlawfully practicing dentistry without a license, the punishment, a fine of $500.
The witness Moorhead testified that on the day in question he went to the appellant's house in Tarrant County; that when he got there he found a lady seated 'behind a desk in the living room or reception room; that he saw seven or eight people there; that after waiting some time the appellant came in and asked the witness what he could do for him; that the witness told appellant he wanted a lower plate made; that they agreed upon a price; that the appellant took the witness into his office, seated him in a doctor or dentist chair and made an impression. The witness further testified that the' appellant subsequently made a lower derital plate for him and charged him $25 for the same.
The witness stated that he did some investigating for the State Dental Board and was paid by them for such work.
The prior conviction was proved, and it was established by the witness Gamer that appellant did not have a license to practice dentistry.
Appellant presents only one bill of exception, which, relates to that portion of the court's charge in which he copied verbatim Article 754b, Vernon's Ann.P.C.
Appellant contends that the use of the word "shall" in the charge, as referred to above, told the jury that they must convict the appellant and is thus on the weight of the evidence. We do not agree with such contention. The court merely told the jury that Moorhfead was an accomplice and, in the words of the statute, Art. 754b, V. A.P.C., as amended by the 52nd Leg., that if they believed him then' ,his 'iestiniony would be sufficient to convict.
We here observe, however, that in view of the statute the ¡better practice would be to omit in 'the charge any question of-the witness being an accomplice. '
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.