Court Opinion

ID: 9769394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:49:07.68656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:02.588011
License: Public Domain

ON THE STATE’S AND APPELLANT BARNEY STAGGNER’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Motions for rehearing have been filed by both the state and the appellant Barney Staggner, the state insisting that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant R. B. Grimes which was reversed on original submission, and the appellant Staggner insisting that his conviction which was affirmed should be reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence and certain errors in the court’s charge. No motion for rehearing has been filed by the appellant Scott Davis.
We have again examined the evidence and remain convinced that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant Grimes but is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant Staggner.
Appellant Staggner insists that the court’s charge presents reversible error for its failure to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence. A review of the record reflects that the various players in the dice game, who were called as witnesses by the state, testified that the appellant Staggner at times handled the money on the table, covered all bets, and paid off the bets when one of the players won. This testimony constituted direct evidence that the appellant was keeping and exhibiting the gaming table and bank and a charge on circumstantial evidence was not required. McFaddin v. State, 119 Texas Cr. Rep. 134, 46 S.W. 2d 307, and West v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 596, 301 S.W. 2d 661, reversed on other grounds.
Appellant Staggner further contends that the court’s charge on principals was erroneous because it did not properly apply the law to the facts, failed to charge the converse of the matters stated therein, was a comment upon the weight of the evidence, and shifted the burden of proof to appellant. An examination of the charge reflects that after defining principals the court did apply the law to the facts as to each appellant separately and required the jury, before finding him guilty, to find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant Stag-*345gner, either alone or acting with others, did keep a gaming table or bank for the purpose of gaming. The court’s instruction was a sufficient application of the law to the facts in submitting the issue of appellant’s guilt to the jury. Dukes v. State, 161 Texas Cr. Rep. 423, 277 S.W. 2d 710. A further examination of the charge reflects that the burden of proof was placed upon the state and not upon the appellant and that the court in the charge did not comment upon the weight of the evidence. Appellant made no objection to the charge on the ground that it did not charge the converse of the law of principals. We find no error in the charge calling for a reversal of the conviction.
The motions for rehearing of both the state and the appellant Barney Staggner are overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.