Case Name: TUCKER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 257 S.W. 260
Docket Number: No. 7339
Parties: TUCKER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 257
Pages: 260–262

Head Matter:
TUCKER v. STATE.
(No. 7339.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 24, 1923.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Nov. 28, 1923. On State’s Motion for Rehearing Jan. 16, 1924.)
i. Larceny <&wkey;57— Evidence held insufficient to support conviction.
In a prosecution for the theft of a calf, evidence and circumstances tending to show that defendant believed the calf belonged to him, and conflicting testimony as to the ownership thereof, held to make the existence of fraudulent intent so doubtful as not to authorize a conviction.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;-723(I), 730(14) — Remarks of prosecuting attorney as to jurors’ opportunity to stand for law enforcement held prejudicial and not remedied. '
Where the issue of fact was close, the remarks of the prosecuting attorney in argument that, if any juror was a member of any sect, organization, or clan, believing in a more rigid enforcement of the 'criminal law, he had an opportunity to demonstrate his sincerity to the teaching of such organization, held injurious to the cause of defendant, and not remedied by an instruction attempting to withdraw them from the jury.
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
Early Tucker was convicted for theft of cattle, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Huffman & Huffman, of Marshall, for appellant.
J. T. Casey, Co. Atty., of Marshall, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for cattle theft; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant and Charley Jackson (owner of the alleged stolen animal) are both negroes, living iu the same community. Jacks on bought a cow with a calf about a month and a half old. He kept the calf for move than a year, marking it with two splits in each ear. It disappeared and was gone some six months when it came back to Jackson's premises. It was then apparently marked with' one split in tbe left ear and balf over-crop in the right. This was appellant's mark, and he claimed the animal as his property, asserting that he had raised it. It is not necessary to set out the evidence pro and con relative to identity of the animal. State's witnesses testified that the scars of the original marks were discernible, and explained in detail tbe appearance of the ears showing where they had been remarked. These were all disputed issues of fact going to establish ownership. The jury was not without evidence to warrant their finding that the animal belonged to Jackson.
We think tbe court committed no error in refusing tbe special charges. Where applicable, tbe issues were sufficiently covered by tbe main charge. Neither do we find basis for the complaint that the charge given was erroneous in limiting the defense to appellant's claim of ownership. The evidence made no other issue.
While the prosecuting attorney was mak ing Ms closing argument, lie used the following language:
"Gentlemen of the Jury: If there is a member of this jury who is a member of any sect, organization, or clan, whose purposes and designs are the more rigid enforcement of the criminal laws of this state, and who believes that the criminal laws have not been and are not being enforced as they should be, you have an opportunity in this case to demonstrate your sincerity to the teaching and doctrine of such organization." -
Objection was made to the remark. The bill certifies that no evidence was in the record justifying such a reference, and that appellant's attorney had said nothing in his argument provoking such language. As soon as the language was used, the bill shóws that—
"The court then and there stopped Mr. Casey, reprimanded him for using such remarks and language before the jury 'in very positive language, and further instructed the jury, at the request of the defendant, not to consider such remarks in determining their verdict, and in no way to be influenced by them; and the assistant county attorney closed the discussipn, and took his seat."
We think in view of the prompt action of the learned trial judge the matter presents no reversible error; especially is this true in the absence of a showing that there were any members of the jury to whom the language might have been of peculiar significance. The facts justified a verdict of guilty, and only the minimum punishment was assessed.
The judgment must be affirmed; and it is so ordered.
<g¡5»For other cases see same topic and K&Y-NUMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes