Case Name: Albert J. Howard v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-16
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 270
Docket Number: No. 6456
Parties: Albert J. Howard v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Albert J. Howard v. The State.
No. 6456.
Decided November 16, 1921.
1. — Theft—Felony—Charge of Court — Written Charge — Statutes Construed.
Articles 735, 737-a, and 740, C. C. P., require that a written charge be given by the court to the jury in a felony case, and an omission to do so is reversible error, the statutes being mandatory.
2. — Same—Written Charge — Punishment—Practice in Trial Court.
Upon trial of felony theft, it was manifest error, on part of the court, in failing to give a written charge to the jury, informing them of the law applicable to the offense and the punishment. Following Williams v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 409, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of felony theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for theft, a felony; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years. The facts are not before us.
No written charge was given the jury. This is complained of, and because of it, the State confesses error. The statute commands, in several subdivisions, that in all felony cases the court shall deliver to the jury a written charge, which shall distinctly set forth the law applicable to the case. Code of Crim. Proc., Articles 735, 737a, and 740. This requirement of the statute has been uniformly held mandatory. White's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, p., 511, Sec. 793; Vernon's Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 500 and cases listed.
There was manifest error in failing to give a written charge to the jury informing them of the law applicable to the offense and the punishment. Williams v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 409; West v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 209. The error, in our judgment, is a substantial one, calculated to injure the rights of the accused. Because of it, a reversal of the judgment is ordered.
Reversed and remanded.