Case Name: MOORE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-05-17
Citations: 137 S.W. 690
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOORE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 137
Pages: 690–696

Head Matter:
MOORE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 17, 1911.)
1. Gaming (§ 75 ) — Statutory Offenses — Elements.
To constitute a violation of Pen. Code 1895, art. 388b, as enacted by Acts 30th Leg. c. 49, punishing one keeping premises to which people resort to gamble, etc., it must appear that people resorted to the place for gambling and engaged in gambling after resorting there, with the knowledge and consent of the keeper.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Gaming, Cent. Dig. §§ 199-201; Dec. Dig. § 75. ]
2. Gaming (§ 102 ) — Evidence — Instructions.
Where on a trial for keeping a gambling house in violation of Pen. Code 1895, art. 3S8b, as enacted by Acts 30th Leg. c. 49, the state showed that accused’s house was resorted to for gambling, and that gambling was carried on there, and accused contradicted the state’s evidence, and showed that if gambling was carried on he did not know it, the refusal to charge that to convict accused the jury must believe that he kept the house for the purpose of gambling or knowingly permitted the house to be used for that purpose, was error.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Gaming, Dec. Dig. § 102. ]
Prendergast, J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
Mollie Moore was convicted of crime, and she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John L. Sheppard and Rodgers & Dorough, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. G?n., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was indicted under article 388,b as enacted by the 30th Legislature, p. 108, for 'keeping and being concerned in keeping and interested in keeping certain premises and a certain building and house and a room in the same for the purpose of gaming, and being used as a place to bet and wager and gamble with cards, and with dice, and with dominoes, and the same was then and there used as a place to bet and wager and gamble with cards and with dice and dominoes, and as a place of resort to bet and wager and gamble with dice and with cards and with dominoes, and, further, that people did then and there resort to said premises and building and room for the purpose of betting and wagering and gambling with dice and with cards and with dominoes, etc. The state's evidence makes it clear that appellant's house was resorted to for the purpose of gaming, and that crowds resorted there for that purpose, and a great many games of dice and cards were played.and betting was carried on rather extensively. An officer testified that he raided the place twice and found a crowd each time, arrested several on each occasion, and that more escaped than were arrested. Another witness testified on two occasions she was at said house, and saw gambling. Appellant's testimony is directly to the contrary. She introduced evidence also to the effect that if gambling was carried on she did not know it. This made the issue sharp. The house was her private residefice.
It is insisted that the court erred in the charge given, and in refusal to give certain requested instructions. The court's charge is as follows: "If the jury should believe beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant rented one or more rooms of a house, situated in said Bowie county, Texas, and that by reason of such rental contract defendant had control and possession of said room or rooms, and that she, on or about the 22d day of March, 1909, unlawfully and willfully and knowingly permitted said room or rooms to be used for the purpose of betting or wagering with cards, or dice, then you will find her guilty." The court further charged that said room or rooms shall he considered as used for the purpose of betting or wagering with cards, or dice, if any fees, money or anything of value is bet thereon, or if the same is resorted to for the purpose of gaming or betting. Appellant asked the court to instruct the jury that before they could convict they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant kept the house for the purpose of gaming or knowingly permitted her house to be used for such purpose, and further that mere gaming would not constitute her guilt, but they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that the house was commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming, and if they should not so believe, or if there was a reasonable doubt of such fact, they should acquit. Without repeating the charges refused, they fairly presented appellant's side of the case.
We are of opinion that these contentions are well taken. This was appellant's private residence, and her testimony is to the effect that people did not play there, nor resort there for the purpose of playing. This is substantially her side of the case, and it should have been so charged to the jury. The court did not present this matter to the jury, but presented the state's ease. Unless people resort to the place for the purpose of gambling and betting, and engaging in such games after resorting there, with her knowledge and consent, it would not come within the inhibition of the statute.
Her evidence raised this question, and because the special instruction was not given, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.